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.
19 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1970–2026 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Finch v. Stategreen2 sentences2017“An objection must be specific enough to put the trial court on notice of any alleged error and provide the court with an opportunity to correct any error if necessary.” Finch v. State, 715 So.2d 906, 912 (Ala. Crim. 2013Opportunity shall be given to make the objection out of the hearing of the jury.” “An objection must be specific enough to put the trial court on notice of any alleged error and provide the court with an opportunity to correct any error if necessary.” Finch v. State, 715 So.2d 906, 912 (Ala.Crim.App.1997). | 8 | 8 |
Ex Parte Washingtongreen2 sentences2001See Ex parte Pettway, 594 So.2d 1196, 1200 (Ala.1991); Ex parte McCall, 594 So.2d 628, 631 (Ala.1991); Ex parte Washington, 448 So.2d 404, 406 (Ala.1984); see also Ex parte Works, 640 So.2d 1056, 1058 (Ala.1994)(opinion modified on application for rehearing)(‘The purpose of requiring a specific objection to preserve an issue for appellate review is to put the trial judge on notice of the alleged error, giving an opportunity to correct it before the case is submitted to the jury.’); Finch v. State, 715 So.2d 906, 912 (Ala.Crim.App.l997)(‘An objection must be specific enough to put the trial cou 2000See Ex parte Pettway, 594 So.2d 1196, 1200 (Ala.1991); Ex parte McCall, 594 So.2d 628, 631 (Ala.1991); Ex parte Washington, 448 So.2d 404, 406 (Ala.1984); see also Ex parte Works, 640 So.2d 1056, 1058 (Ala.1994) (opinion as modified on application for rehearing) (“The purpose of requiring a specific objection to preserve an issue for appellate review is to put the trial judge on notice of the alleged error, giving an opportunity to correct it before the case is submitted to the jury.”); Finch v. State, 715 So.2d 906, 912 (Ala.Crim.App.1997) (“An objection must be specific enough to put the tri | 4 | 4 |
Ex Parte Pettwaygreen2 sentences2001See Ex parte Pettway, 594 So.2d 1196, 1200 (Ala.1991); Ex parte McCall, 594 So.2d 628, 631 (Ala.1991); Ex parte Washington, 448 So.2d 404, 406 (Ala.1984); see also Ex parte Works, 640 So.2d 1056, 1058 (Ala.1994)(opinion modified on application for rehearing)(‘The purpose of requiring a specific objection to preserve an issue for appellate review is to put the trial judge on notice of the alleged error, giving an opportunity to correct it before the case is submitted to the jury.’); Finch v. State, 715 So.2d 906, 912 (Ala.Crim.App.l997)(‘An objection must be specific enough to put the trial cou 2000See Ex parte Pettway, 594 So.2d 1196, 1200 (Ala.1991); Ex parte McCall, 594 So.2d 628, 631 (Ala.1991); Ex parte Washington, 448 So.2d 404, 406 (Ala.1984); see also Ex parte Works, 640 So.2d 1056, 1058 (Ala.1994) (opinion as modified on application for rehearing) (“The purpose of requiring a specific objection to preserve an issue for appellate review is to put the trial judge on notice of the alleged error, giving an opportunity to correct it before the case is submitted to the jury.”); Finch v. State, 715 So.2d 906, 912 (Ala.Crim.App.1997) (“An objection must be specific enough to put the tri | 4 | 4 |
Ex Parte McCallgreen2 sentences2001See Ex parte Pettway, 594 So.2d 1196, 1200 (Ala.1991); Ex parte McCall, 594 So.2d 628, 631 (Ala.1991); Ex parte Washington, 448 So.2d 404, 406 (Ala.1984); see also Ex parte Works, 640 So.2d 1056, 1058 (Ala.1994)(opinion modified on application for rehearing)(‘The purpose of requiring a specific objection to preserve an issue for appellate review is to put the trial judge on notice of the alleged error, giving an opportunity to correct it before the case is submitted to the jury.’); Finch v. State, 715 So.2d 906, 912 (Ala.Crim.App.l997)(‘An objection must be specific enough to put the trial cou 2000See Ex parte Pettway, 594 So.2d 1196, 1200 (Ala.1991); Ex parte McCall, 594 So.2d 628, 631 (Ala.1991); Ex parte Washington, 448 So.2d 404, 406 (Ala.1984); see also Ex parte Works, 640 So.2d 1056, 1058 (Ala.1994) (opinion as modified on application for rehearing) (“The purpose of requiring a specific objection to preserve an issue for appellate review is to put the trial judge on notice of the alleged error, giving an opportunity to correct it before the case is submitted to the jury.”); Finch v. State, 715 So.2d 906, 912 (Ala.Crim.App.1997) (“An objection must be specific enough to put the tri | 4 | 4 |
Ex Parte Worksgreen2 sentences2001See Ex parte Pettway, 594 So.2d 1196, 1200 (Ala.1991); Ex parte McCall, 594 So.2d 628, 631 (Ala.1991); Ex parte Washington, 448 So.2d 404, 406 (Ala.1984); see also Ex parte Works, 640 So.2d 1056, 1058 (Ala.1994)(opinion modified on application for rehearing)(‘The purpose of requiring a specific objection to preserve an issue for appellate review is to put the trial judge on notice of the alleged error, giving an opportunity to correct it before the case is submitted to the jury.’); Finch v. State, 715 So.2d 906, 912 (Ala.Crim.App.l997)(‘An objection must be specific enough to put the trial cou 2000See Ex parte Pettway, 594 So.2d 1196, 1200 (Ala.1991); Ex parte McCall, 594 So.2d 628, 631 (Ala.1991); Ex parte Washington, 448 So.2d 404, 406 (Ala.1984); see also Ex parte Works, 640 So.2d 1056, 1058 (Ala.1994) (opinion as modified on application for rehearing) (“The purpose of requiring a specific objection to preserve an issue for appellate review is to put the trial judge on notice of the alleged error, giving an opportunity to correct it before the case is submitted to the jury.”); Finch v. State, 715 So.2d 906, 912 (Ala.Crim.App.1997) (“An objection must be specific enough to put the tri | 4 | 4 |
Ex Parte RDWgreen2 sentences2011Finch v. State, 715 So.2d 906, 912 (Ala.Crim.App.1997) (‘An objection must be specific enough to put the trial court on notice of any alleged error and provide the court with an opportunity to correct any error if necessary.’).”); Ex parte R.D.W., 773 So.2d 426, 428-29 (Ala.2000) (“These grounds, taken together with R.D.W.’s written request, were sufficiently specific for purposes of preserving this issue for appellate review, because they put the trial court on notice of the substance of the alleged error and thereby provided that court an opportunity to correct it. 2011Finch v. State, 715 So.2d 906, 912 (Ala. Crim.App.1997) (`An objection must be specific enough to put the trial court on notice of any alleged error and provide the court with an opportunity to correct any error if necessary.')."); Ex parte R.D.W., 773 So.2d 426, 428-29 (Ala.2000) ("These grounds, taken together with R.D.W.'s written request, were sufficiently specific for purposes of preserving this issue for appellate review, because they put the trial court on notice of the substance of the alleged error and thereby provided that court an opportunity to correct it. | 2 | 2 |
Coleman v. Tabergreen2 sentences2010Regarding the third requirement, this Court in Ware explained: ‘“Requiring a party to state to the trial court the grounds for his objection to a jury instruction affords the trial court an opportunity to correct any error in its charge before it becomes error with injury to reversal.’ Coleman v. Taber, 572 So.2d 399, 402 (Ala.1990). 2006"Requiring a party to state to the trial court the grounds for his objection to a jury instruction affords the trial court an opportunity to correct any error in its charge before it becomes error with injury to reversal." Coleman v. Taber, 572 So.2d 399, 402 (Ala.1990). | 2 | 2 |
Grayco Resources, Inc. v. Poolegreen2 sentences1990Record Data Int'l, Inc. v. Nichols , 381 So.2d 1 (Ala. 1979); See also, Grayco Resources, Inc. v. Poole , 500 So.2d 1030 (Ala. 1986). 1988Submission of additional explanatory instructions shall not be required unless requested by the court." The Court in Record Data, supra , 381 So.2d at 7 , gave the following explanation of the purpose of this rule: "Rule 51 affords the trial court an opportunity to correct any error in its charge before it becomes error with injury to reversal." In a similar vein, see, e.g., Grayco Resources, Inc. v. Poole , 500 So.2d 1030 (Ala. 1986). | 1 | 2 |
Nash v. Stategreen1 sentence2026"An objection must be specific enough to put the trial court on notice of any alleged error and provide the court with an opportunity to correct any error if necessary." Nash v. State, 229 So. 3d 1112, 1113 (Ala. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Frithgreen1 sentence2013“It is well settled that ‘[t]he statement of specific grounds of objection waives all grounds not specified, and the trial court will not be put in error on grounds not assigned at trial.’ ” Spencer v. State, 58 So.3d 215, 246 (Ala.Crim.App.2008) (quoting Ex parte Frith, 526 So.2d 880, 882 (Ala.1987)). | 1 | 1 |
Spencer v. Stategreen1 sentence2013“It is well settled that ‘[t]he statement of specific grounds of objection waives all grounds not specified, and the trial court will not be put in error on grounds not assigned at trial.’ ” Spencer v. State, 58 So.3d 215, 246 (Ala.Crim.App.2008) (quoting Ex parte Frith, 526 So.2d 880, 882 (Ala.1987)). | 1 | 1 |
Scroggins v. Alabama Gas Corporationgreen2 sentences1970See Scroggins v. Alabama Gas Corp., 275 Ala. 650 , 158 So. 2d 90 . 1970See Scroggins v. Alabama Gas Corp., 275 Ala. 650 , 158 So. 2d 90 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Record Data Intern., Inc. v. Nichols
green
2 sentences1988Submission of additional explanatory instructions shall not be required unless requested by the court." The Court in Record Data, supra , 381 So.2d at 7 , gave the following explanation of the purpose of this rule: "Rule 51 affords the trial court an opportunity to correct any error in its charge before it becomes error with injury to reversal." In a similar vein, see, e.g., Grayco Resources, Inc. v. Poole , 500 So.2d 1030 (Ala. 1986). 1984As we held in Record Data International, Inc. v. Nichols, 381 So.2d 1 (Ala.1979): "`Rule 51, ARCP specifies that error may not be assigned for the giving of a defective charge unless the party seeking to assign error objects to that portion of the charge which is defective before the jury retires to consider its verdict, and specifically states the matter to which he objects and the grounds of his objection.... "`Rule 51 affords the trial court an opportunity to correct any error in its charge before it becomes error with injury to reversal.' " 381 So.2d at 7 ." In Reece , we determined that t | 4 | 1983–1990 |
Petite v. State
green
1 sentence1997Petite v. State , 520 So.2d 207 , 213 (Ala.Cr.App. 1987). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Burkett v. State
green
1 sentence1993Kyser v. State , 513 So.2d 68 (Ala.Cr.App. 1987); Burkett v. State , 439 So.2d 737 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Kyser v. State
green
1 sentence1993Kyser v. State , 513 So.2d 68 (Ala.Cr.App. 1987); Burkett v. State , 439 So.2d 737 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Burnett v. Martin
green
1 sentence1990"THE COURT: Okay." We follow the general rule established by Rule 51 as articulated in Burnett v. Martin , 405 So.2d 23 , 28 (Ala. 1981), that "not only must an objection to the trial court's refusal to give an instruction be made, but the objection must be made specifically and must be supported by grounds in order for review to be had in the appellate court." Requiring a party to state to the trial court the grounds for his objection to a jury instruction affords the trial court an opportunity to correct any error in its charge before it becomes error with injury to reversal. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
United States v. Erwin
green
1 sentence1988United States v. Erwin, 793 F.2d 656 (5th Cir.1986), citing Batson, supra. If the issue is not presented promptly, the court is denied the opportunity to correct any error committed. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Beloit Corp. v. Harrell
green
2 sentences1981Beloit Corp. v. Harrell, 339 So.2d 992 (Ala.1976). 1981Beloit Corp. v. Harrell , 339 So.2d 992 (Ala. 1976). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.