Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
21 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1890–2025 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Alabama courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Schaut v. Stategreen2 sentences2025The standard for determining whether error is harmless is whether the evidence in error was 'harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.' Schaut v. State, 551 So. 2d 1135, 1137 (Ala. Crim. 2024App. 1997)." Woodard, 846 So. 2d at 1108 . " 'The standard for determining whether error is harmless is whether the evidence in error was "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." Schaut v. State, 551 So. 2d 1135, 1137 (Ala. Crim. | 11 | 13 |
Hunter v. Stategreen2 sentences2016The standard for determining whether error is harmless is whether the evidence in error was ‘harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.’ Schaut v. State, 551 So.2d 1135, 1137 (Ala.Crim.App.1989), citing Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967).” Hunter v. State, 802 So.2d 265, 270 (Ala.Crim.App.2000). “[T]he harmless error rule excuses the error of admitting inadmissible evidence only [when] the evidence was so innocuous or cumulative that it could not have contributed substantially to the adverse verdict.” Ex parte Baker, 906 So.2d 277, 284 (Ala.2004). 2016The standard for determining whether error is harmless is whether the evidence in error was “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Schaut v. State, 551 So.2d 1135, 1137 (Ala.Crim.App.1989), citing Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967).’ “Hunter v. State, 802 So.2d 265, 270 (Ala.Crim.App.2000), ‘[T]he harmless error rule excuses the error of admitting inadmissible evidence only [when] the evidence was so innocuous or cumulative that it could not have contributed substantially to the adverse verdict.’ Ex parte Baker, 906 So.2d 277, 284 (Ala.2004).” Horton v. St | 3 | 4 |
Ex Parte Bakergreen2 sentences2016The standard for determining whether error is harmless is whether the evidence in error was ‘harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.’ Schaut v. State, 551 So.2d 1135, 1137 (Ala.Crim.App.1989), citing Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967).” Hunter v. State, 802 So.2d 265, 270 (Ala.Crim.App.2000). “[T]he harmless error rule excuses the error of admitting inadmissible evidence only [when] the evidence was so innocuous or cumulative that it could not have contributed substantially to the adverse verdict.” Ex parte Baker, 906 So.2d 277, 284 (Ala.2004). 2016The standard for determining whether error is harmless is whether the evidence in error was “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Schaut v. State, 551 So.2d 1135, 1137 (Ala.Crim.App.1989), citing Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967).’ “Hunter v. State, 802 So.2d 265, 270 (Ala.Crim.App.2000), ‘[T]he harmless error rule excuses the error of admitting inadmissible evidence only [when] the evidence was so innocuous or cumulative that it could not have contributed substantially to the adverse verdict.’ Ex parte Baker, 906 So.2d 277, 284 (Ala.2004).” Horton v. St | 2 | 2 |
Ex Parte Vaughngreen2 sentences2015See Ex parte Vaughn , 869 So.2d 1090 , 1098 (Ala.2002). 2015See Ex parte Vaughn , 869 So.2d 1090 , 1098 (Ala.2002). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Andersongreen2 sentences2011If the questions asked are not germane to the issues involved or are such as would be clearly improper and therefore prejudicial to the rights of the defendants to a fair and impartial trial, the court’s allowing them to be answered would be error.’ “State v. Anderson, 108 Utah 130, 133 , 158 P.2d 127, 128 (1945). 2011If the questions asked are not germane to the issues involved or are such as would be clearly improper and therefore prejudicial to the rights of the defendants to a fair and impartial trial, the court’s allowing them to be answered would be error.’ “State v. Anderson, 108 Utah 130, 133 , 158 P.2d 127, 128 (1945). | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Moncayogreen1 sentence2014See also United States v. Moncayo, 440 Fed.Appx. 647, 652 (10th Cir.2011) (“[T]his court will ‘not disturb a jury verdict based on a Rule 404(b) error if it was harmless.’ ”) (not selected for, publication in the Federal Reporter); 9 United States v. Knope, 655 F.3d 647, 657 (7th Cir.2011) (“Wé will reverse' for error in admitting Rule 404(b) evidence only if the error was not harmless.”); United States v. McCall, 553 F.3d 821, 827 (5th Cir.2008) (“[Ejrroneous admissions under ■ Rule 404(b) are subject to a harmless error inquiry.”); Wiggins testified in his own defense, and the following occu | 1 | 1 |
United States v. McCallgreen1 sentence2014See also United States v. Moncayo, 440 Fed.Appx. 647, 652 (10th Cir.2011) (“[T]his court will ‘not disturb a jury verdict based on a Rule 404(b) error if it was harmless.’ ”) (not selected for, publication in the Federal Reporter); 9 United States v. Knope, 655 F.3d 647, 657 (7th Cir.2011) (“Wé will reverse' for error in admitting Rule 404(b) evidence only if the error was not harmless.”); United States v. McCall, 553 F.3d 821, 827 (5th Cir.2008) (“[Ejrroneous admissions under ■ Rule 404(b) are subject to a harmless error inquiry.”); Wiggins testified in his own defense, and the following occu | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Knopegreen1 sentence2014See also United States v. Moncayo, 440 Fed.Appx. 647, 652 (10th Cir.2011) (“[T]his court will ‘not disturb a jury verdict based on a Rule 404(b) error if it was harmless.’ ”) (not selected for, publication in the Federal Reporter); 9 United States v. Knope, 655 F.3d 647, 657 (7th Cir.2011) (“Wé will reverse' for error in admitting Rule 404(b) evidence only if the error was not harmless.”); United States v. McCall, 553 F.3d 821, 827 (5th Cir.2008) (“[Ejrroneous admissions under ■ Rule 404(b) are subject to a harmless error inquiry.”); Wiggins testified in his own defense, and the following occu | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Hutchersongreen1 sentence1999See Ex parte Hutcherson, 677 So.2d 1205 (Ala. 1996), and Ex parte Greathouse, 624 So.2d 208 (Ala. 1993). | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Greathousegreen1 sentence1999See Ex parte Hutcherson, 677 So.2d 1205 (Ala. 1996), and Ex parte Greathouse, 624 So.2d 208 (Ala. 1993). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Chapman v. California
red
2 sentences2016The standard for determining whether error is harmless is whether the evidence in error was ‘harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.’ Schaut v. State, 551 So.2d 1135, 1137 (Ala.Crim.App.1989), citing Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967).” Hunter v. State, 802 So.2d 265, 270 (Ala.Crim.App.2000). “[T]he harmless error rule excuses the error of admitting inadmissible evidence only [when] the evidence was so innocuous or cumulative that it could not have contributed substantially to the adverse verdict.” Ex parte Baker, 906 So.2d 277, 284 (Ala.2004). 2016The standard for determining whether error is harmless is whether the evidence in error was ‘harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.’ Schaut v. State, 551 So.2d 1135, 1137 (Ala.Crim.App.1989), citing Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967).” Hunter v. State, 802 So.2d 265, 270 (Ala.Crim.App.2000). “[T]he harmless error rule excuses the error of admitting inadmissible evidence only [when] the evidence was so innocuous or cumulative that it could not have contributed substantially to the adverse verdict.” Ex parte Baker, 906 So.2d 277, 284 (Ala.2004). | 14 | 1999–2025 |
McAdory v. State
green
2 sentences2015The standard for determining whether error is harmless is whether the evidence in error was 'harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.' Schaut v. State , 551 So.2d 1135 , 1137 (Ala.Crim.App.1989), citing Chapman v. California , 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967)." McAdory v. State , 895 So.2d 1029 , 1036 (Ala.Crim.App.2004). 2015The standard for determining whether error is harmless is whether the evidence in error was 'harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.' Schaut v. State , 551 So.2d 1135 , 1137 (Ala.Crim.App.1989), citing Chapman v. California , 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967)." McAdory v. State , 895 So.2d 1029 , 1036 (Ala.Crim.App.2004). | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Woodard v. State
green
1 sentence2024App. 1997)." Woodard, 846 So. 2d at 1108 . " 'The standard for determining whether error is harmless is whether the evidence in error was "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." Schaut v. State, 551 So. 2d 1135, 1137 (Ala. Crim. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Horton v. State
green
1 sentence2016The standard for determining whether error is harmless is whether the evidence in error was “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Schaut v. State, 551 So.2d 1135, 1137 (Ala.Crim.App.1989), citing Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967).’ “Hunter v. State, 802 So.2d 265, 270 (Ala.Crim.App.2000), ‘[T]he harmless error rule excuses the error of admitting inadmissible evidence only [when] the evidence was so innocuous or cumulative that it could not have contributed substantially to the adverse verdict.’ Ex parte Baker, 906 So.2d 277, 284 (Ala.2004).” Horton v. St | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Ex Parte Uniroyal Tire Co.
green
1 sentence2010The extraordinary nature of the transaction itself along with the lack of transactions similar in scope and kind demonstrates that the sale of the Coosa properties was not in the nature of a “steady or uniform” practice for the companies that recurred at “fixed or uniform intervals.” Uniroyal, 779 So.2d at 286 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Hearn
green
2 sentences1987In United States Fidelity Guaranty Co. v. Hearn , 233 Ala. 31 , 170 So. 59 (1936), the insured made arrangements with friends to travel to the Rose Bowl in his car. 1987In United States Fidelity Guaranty Co. v. Hearn , 233 Ala. 31 , 170 So. 59 (1936), the insured made arrangements with friends to travel to the Rose Bowl in his car. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Gosa v. State
green
2 sentences1981Gosa v. State , 273 Ala. 346 , 139 So.2d 321 (1962); Ex parte Cowart ,` 201 Ala. 525 , 78 So. 879 (1918); McCovery v. State , 365 So.2d 358 (Ala.Cr.App. 1978). 1981Gosa v. State , 273 Ala. 346 , 139 So.2d 321 (1962); Ex parte Cowart ,` 201 Ala. 525 , 78 So. 879 (1918); McCovery v. State , 365 So.2d 358 (Ala.Cr.App. 1978). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Ex Parte Cowart
neutral
2 sentences1981Gosa v. State , 273 Ala. 346 , 139 So.2d 321 (1962); Ex parte Cowart ,` 201 Ala. 525 , 78 So. 879 (1918); McCovery v. State , 365 So.2d 358 (Ala.Cr.App. 1978). 1981Gosa v. State , 273 Ala. 346 , 139 So.2d 321 (1962); Ex parte Cowart ,` 201 Ala. 525 , 78 So. 879 (1918); McCovery v. State , 365 So.2d 358 (Ala.Cr.App. 1978). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
McCovery v. State
green
1 sentence1981Gosa v. State , 273 Ala. 346 , 139 So.2d 321 (1962); Ex parte Cowart ,` 201 Ala. 525 , 78 So. 879 (1918); McCovery v. State , 365 So.2d 358 (Ala.Cr.App. 1978). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Maxmilian v. . Mayor
green
1 sentence1963In City of Bay Minette v. Quinley, supra (quoting from the New York case of Maxmilian v. Mayor, 62 N.Y. 160 ) a detailed statement and rationale of the test are found: “ ‘One is of that kind which arises from the grant of a special power, in the exercise of which the municipality is as a legal individual; the other is of that kind which arises, or is implied, from the use of political rights under the general law, in the exercise of which it is as a sovereign. | 1 | 1963–1963 |
Parr v. City of Birmingham
neutral
2 sentences1963The determining test as to whether a function is governmental or corporate may be simply stated, viz., “Whether the act performed is for the common good of all, or for the special benefit or profit of the corporate entity.” McSheridan v. City of Talladega, supra; Parr v. City of Birmingham, 264 Ala. 224 , 85 So.2d 888 . 1963The determining test as to whether a function is governmental or corporate may be simply stated, viz., “Whether the act performed is for the common good of all, or for the special benefit or profit of the corporate entity.” McSheridan v. City of Talladega, supra; Parr v. City of Birmingham, 264 Ala. 224 , 85 So.2d 888 . | 1 | 1963–1963 |
Phillips v. Peteet
neutral
1 sentence1890But in these it is 'expressly provided that the degree of kindred must be computed according to the rules of the civil law. — Code, § 1918; and except with respect to some priority of right otherwise specially provided for in the descent or distribution of property, a matter not involved here, this statutory adoption of the rules of the civil law must be effectuated. — Phillips v. Petect, 35 Ala. 696 . | 1 | 1890–1890 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.