criminal prosecution violation in Alabama

20 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2026 1 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.

Followed or applied (8)

Case	Followed	Cited
Ex Parte Maxwellgreen ala · 1983 · cited in 17 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1986–2026 2 sentences 2026See Ex parte Maxwell, 439 So. 2d 715, 716 (Ala. 1983) ("[I]t is well established that in a criminal prosecution for violation of a city ordinance the city must plead and prove the ordinance."). 2013In Ex parte Hall, 843 So.2d 746, 747-748 (Ala.2002), the Alabama Supreme Court stated: “In Ex parte Maxwell, 439 So.2d 715, 716 (Ala.1983), a case involving the City of Mobile’s failure to introduce into evidence the ordinance Maxwell was charged with violating, this Court held: “ ‘[I]t is well established that in a criminal prosecution for violation of a city ordinance the city must plead and prove the ordinance.	8	17
Ex Parte Hallgreen ala · 2002 · cited in 2 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2009–2013 2 sentences 2013In Ex parte Hall, 843 So.2d 746, 747-748 (Ala.2002), the Alabama Supreme Court stated: “In Ex parte Maxwell, 439 So.2d 715, 716 (Ala.1983), a case involving the City of Mobile’s failure to introduce into evidence the ordinance Maxwell was charged with violating, this Court held: “ ‘[I]t is well established that in a criminal prosecution for violation of a city ordinance the city must plead and prove the ordinance. 2009See also Ex parte Hall, 843 So.2d 746, 747 (Ala.2002) (holding that, although the city showed the ordinance to the circuit court, it failed to introduce the ordinance into evidence and thus failed to establish a prima facie case); Ex parte Townsend, 793 So.2d 835 , 837-38 (Ala.2000) (holding that the city must prove the entire ordinance); Sims v. City of Montgomery, 781 So.2d 363, 364 (Ala.Crim.App.2000) (holding that the city failed to prove a prima facie case against the appellant where “the record does not reflect that the ordinance was ... admitted into evidence [or that it] was considered	2	2
Truman v. City of Enterprisegreen alacrimapp · 1992 · cited in 2 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1996–2004 2 sentences 2004Both this Court and the Alabama Supreme Court have held on numerous occasions that "in a criminal prosecution for violation of a city ordinance the [prosecution] must plead and prove the ordinance." See, e.g., Ex parte Maxwell , 439 So.2d 715 , 716 (Ala. 1983); Truman v. City of Enterprise , 606 So.2d 1151 , 1153 (Ala.Crim.App. 1992). 1996The appellant contends, and the City concedes, that the City failed to introduce and prove the ordinance upon which the underlying charges were based, and that the City therefore, failed to establish a prima facie case. “ ‘[I]n a criminal prosecution for violation of a city ordinance the city must plead and prove the ordinance.’ [Ex parte ] Maxwell, 439 So.2d [715] at 716 [ (Ala.1983) ]; Prather v. City of Hoover, 585 So.2d 257, 258 (Ala.Cr.App.1991).” Truman v. City of Enterprise, 606 So.2d 1151,1153 (Ala.Cr.App.1992).	1	2
Prather v. City of Hoovergreen alacrimapp · 1991 · cited in 2 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1992–1996 2 sentences 1996The appellant contends, and the City concedes, that the City failed to introduce and prove the ordinance upon which the underlying charges were based, and that the City therefore, failed to establish a prima facie case. “ ‘[I]n a criminal prosecution for violation of a city ordinance the city must plead and prove the ordinance.’ [Ex parte ] Maxwell, 439 So.2d [715] at 716 [ (Ala.1983) ]; Prather v. City of Hoover, 585 So.2d 257, 258 (Ala.Cr.App.1991).” Truman v. City of Enterprise, 606 So.2d 1151,1153 (Ala.Cr.App.1992). 1992II Regarding the appellant's argument that the prosecution failed to introduce the *Page 1153 municipal ordinance upon which the driving under the influence charge was based, it has been held on numerous occasions "that in a criminal prosecution for violation of a city ordinance the city must plead and prove the ordinance." Maxwell , 439 So.2d at 716; Prather v. City of Hoover , 585 So.2d 257 , 258 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991).	1	2
Bailey v. City of Raglandgreen alacrimapp · 2013 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 1 sentence 2014I likewise urge the Alabama Supreme Court to overrule Ex parte Maxwell to the extent it holds that a defendant is not required to specifically object to the failure of the city to plead and prove the ordinance .in a criminal prosecution for violation of a city ordinance.” 136 So.3d at 505-06 (Joiner, J., concurring in the result). .	1	1
Sims v. City of Montgomerygreen alacrimapp · 2000 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 1 sentence 2009See also Ex parte Hall, 843 So.2d 746, 747 (Ala.2002) (holding that, although the city showed the ordinance to the circuit court, it failed to introduce the ordinance into evidence and thus failed to establish a prima facie case); Ex parte Townsend, 793 So.2d 835 , 837-38 (Ala.2000) (holding that the city must prove the entire ordinance); Sims v. City of Montgomery, 781 So.2d 363, 364 (Ala.Crim.App.2000) (holding that the city failed to prove a prima facie case against the appellant where “the record does not reflect that the ordinance was ... admitted into evidence [or that it] was considered	1	1
McDonald v. City of Birminghamgreen alacrimapp · 1994 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996 1 sentence 1996See also McDonald v. City of Birmingham, 642 So.2d 535 (AIa.Cr.App.1994).	1	1
Peters v. City of Phenix Citygreen alacrimapp · 1991 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992 1 sentence 1992See also Peters v. City of Phenix City , 589 So.2d 800 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991); Ingram v. City of Dothan , 588 So.2d 943 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (6)

Case	Cited	Years
Jacobs v. City of Prichard green alacrimapp · 1971 2 sentences 2000Cooper v. Town of Valley Head, 212 Ala. 125 , 101 So. 874 (1924); Jacobs v. City of Prichard, 46 Ala.App. 497 , 243 So.2d 769 (1971); Thompson v. City of Sylacauga, 30 Ala.App. 72 , 200 So. 795 (1941). 2000Cooper v. Town of Valley Head, 212 Ala. 125 , 101 So. 874 (1924); Jacobs v. City of Prichard, 46 Ala.App. 497 , 243 So.2d 769 (1971); Thompson v. City of Sylacauga, 30 Ala.App. 72 , 200 So. 795 (1941).	6	1983–2000
Ex Parte Adkins green ala · 1924 2 sentences 2000Cooper v. Town of Valley Head , 212 Ala. 125 , 101 So. 874 (1924); Jacobs v. City of Prichard , 46 Ala. App. 497 , 243 So.2d 769 (1971); Thompson v. City of Sylacauga , 30 Ala. App. 72 , 200 So. 795 (1941). 2000Cooper v. Town of Valley Head, 212 Ala. 125 , 101 So. 874 (1924); Jacobs v. City of Prichard, 46 Ala.App. 497 , 243 So.2d 769 (1971); Thompson v. City of Sylacauga, 30 Ala.App. 72 , 200 So. 795 (1941).	6	1983–2000
Thompson v. City of Sylacauga green alactapp · 1941 2 sentences 2000Cooper v. Town of Valley Head, 212 Ala. 125 , 101 So. 874 (1924); Jacobs v. City of Prichard, 46 Ala.App. 497 , 243 So.2d 769 (1971); Thompson v. City of Sylacauga, 30 Ala.App. 72 , 200 So. 795 (1941). 2000Cooper v. Town of Valley Head, 212 Ala. 125 , 101 So. 874 (1924); Jacobs v. City of Prichard, 46 Ala.App. 497 , 243 So.2d 769 (1971); Thompson v. City of Sylacauga, 30 Ala.App. 72 , 200 So. 795 (1941).	6	1983–2000
Cooper v. Town of Valley Head green ala · 1924 2 sentences 2000Cooper v. Town of Valley Head , 212 Ala. 125 , 101 So. 874 (1924); Jacobs v. City of Prichard , 46 Ala. App. 497 , 243 So.2d 769 (1971); Thompson v. City of Sylacauga , 30 Ala. App. 72 , 200 So. 795 (1941). 2000Cooper v. Town of Valley Head, 212 Ala. 125 , 101 So. 874 (1924); Jacobs v. City of Prichard, 46 Ala.App. 497 , 243 So.2d 769 (1971); Thompson v. City of Sylacauga, 30 Ala.App. 72 , 200 So. 795 (1941).	6	1983–2000
Ex Parte Townsend neutral ala · 2000 2 sentences 2009See also Ex parte Hall, 843 So.2d 746, 747 (Ala.2002) (holding that, although the city showed the ordinance to the circuit court, it failed to introduce the ordinance into evidence and thus failed to establish a prima facie case); Ex parte Townsend, 793 So.2d 835 , 837-38 (Ala.2000) (holding that the city must prove the entire ordinance); Sims v. City of Montgomery, 781 So.2d 363, 364 (Ala.Crim.App.2000) (holding that the city failed to prove a prima facie case against the appellant where “the record does not reflect that the ordinance was ... admitted into evidence [or that it] was considered 2002And it has been held when the city does not introduce the ordinance into evidence, it has failed to make out its case against the defendant and the trial court has erred in pronouncing the judgment of conviction.” (Citations omitted.) In Ex parte Townsend, 793 So.2d 835 (Ala.2000), another case arising out of an alleged violation of a Mobile municipal ordinance, we held that a municipal prosecutor has the burden of proving the entire ordinance under which a defendant is prosecuted.	3	2002–2009
Ingram v. City of Dothan neutral alacrimapp · 1991 1 sentence 1992See also Peters v. City of Phenix City , 589 So.2d 800 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991); Ingram v. City of Dothan , 588 So.2d 943 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991).	1	1992–1992

Statutes the citing opinions construe

AL § Ala. Code § 32-5A-191 (4)

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.

Where else courts name it

AL 20 (1983–2026) NY 16 (1889–2024) OH 15 (1982–2026) CA 10 (1915–2022) TX 7 (1970–2017) IL 6 (1892–1992) GA 6 (1968–1998) OR 6 (1949–2012) PA 5 (1936–2025) NC 5 (1917–2017) MN 4 (1910–2015) WA 4 (1985–2001) VA 3 (1995–2009) IN 3 (1978–1989) VT 3 (1988–2018) UT 3 (1929–1967) IA 2 (1919–1986) FL 2 (1984–1985) LA 2 (1964–1981) TN 2 (1997–2013) AR 2 (1941–1988) MI 2 (1886–1972) OK 2 (1927–1976) HI 2 (1979–1983) NJ 2 (1962–1969) MS 2 (1988–1991) MD 2 (1980–1983)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check

Your account

Appearance