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 3 courts 1993–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Largin v. Stategreen2 sentences2025See Largin v. State, 233 So. 3d 374, 403 (Ala. Crim. 2024See Largin v. State, 233 So. 3d 374, 403 (Ala. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Wilson v. Stategreen2 sentences2025Therefore, the trial court should have granted Wilson's motion to file the fourth and fifth amended petitions." 14 CR-21-0109 Wilson, 911 So. 2d at 44-46 . 2024Therefore, the trial court should have granted Wilson's motion to file the fourth and fifth amended petitions." Wilson, 911 So. 2d at 44-46 . | 2 | 2 |
Johnson v. Stategreen2 sentences2025We have held: " 'To [establish] a Brady violation, a defendant must show that " '(1) the prosecution suppressed evidence; (2) the evidence was favorable to the defendant; and (3) the evidence 118 CR-21-0109 was material to the issues at trial.' " Johnson v. State, 612 So. 2d 1288, 1293 (Ala. Cr. 2024We have held: " 'To [establish] a Brady violation, a defendant must show that " '(1) the prosecution suppressed evidence; (2) the evidence was favorable to the defendant; and (3) the evidence was material to the issues at trial.' " Johnson v. State, 612 So. 2d 1288, 1293 (Ala. Cr. | 2 | 2 |
Carruth v. Stategreen2 sentences2025See Carruth v. State, 165 So. 3d 627, 645 (Ala. Crim. 2024See Carruth v. State, 165 So. 3d 627, 645 (Ala. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Stallworth v. Stategreen2 sentences2025See Stallworth v. State, 171 So. 3d 53, 84-85 (Ala. Crim. 2024See Stallworth v. State, 171 So. 3d 53, 84-85 (Ala. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Ex Parte Berryhillgreen2 sentences2009As Judge Bryan stated: “ ‘The cardinal rule in statutory construction is to give effect to the legislative intent as clearly expressed in the statute or as may be inferred from the language used as well as from the reason for the act.’ Ex parte BerryhiU, 801 So.2d 7, 11 (Ala.2001) (emphasis omitted). 2009As Judge Bryan stated: "`The cardinal rule in statutory construction is to give effect to the legislative intent as clearly expressed in the statute or as may be inferred from the language used as well as from the reason for the act.' Ex parte Berryhill, 801 So.2d 7, 11 (Ala.2001) (emphasis omitted). | 2 | 2 |
First Bank of Boaz v. Fieldergreen2 sentences2003See First Bank of Boaz v. Fielder , 590 So.2d 893 (Ala. 1991). 4 In its May 13 order, the trial court granted Wilson's motion under Rule 60(b)(4), Ala.R.Civ.P., on the basis that the jury's verdict was inconsistent under Smith and that it thereby violated his due-process rights. 1995In First Bank of Boaz v. Fielder , 590 So.2d 893 (Ala. 1991), this Court held that an essential element of a cause of action for fraud is injury to the plaintiff. | 1 | 2 |
Baze v. Reesgreen1 sentence2010Wilson argues that death-qualifying the jury is a “‘procedure that has the purpose and effect of obtaining a jury that is biased in favor of conviction.’ Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35, 84 (2008) (Stevens, J., concurring).” (Wilson’s brief, at 96-97). | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Stategreen1 sentence2010It is well settled that “[a] trial court’s ruling on a Batson motion depends on its credibility determinations.” Douglas v. State, 740 So.2d 485, 487 (Ala.Crim.App.1999) (citing Smith v. State, 590 So.2d 388, 390 (Ala.Crim.App.1991)). | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Farrellgreen1 sentence2010Morgan v. State, 368 So.2d 1013 (Ala.Crim.App.1978); see, also, Ex parte Farrell, 591 So.2d 444, 449-50, n. 3 (Ala.1991). | 1 | 1 |
Duke v. Stategreen1 sentence2010Wilson next argues that the circuit court erred by denying his application for youthful-offender status. 15 Specifically, Wilson asserts that the circuit court “accepted without independent analysis” the probation officer’s youthful-offender investigation, ignored Wilson’s assertions of why youthful-offender status was appropriate, and made a eonclusory statement that Wilson’s crime was “not very youthful.” (Wilson’s brief, at 76-77.) “In Duke v. State, 889 So.2d 1, 17 (Ala.Crim.App.2002), we stated: “ ‘ “In determining whether to treat a defendant as a youthful offender, the trial court has n | 1 | 1 |
Douglas v. Stategreen1 sentence2010It is well settled that “[a] trial court’s ruling on a Batson motion depends on its credibility determinations.” Douglas v. State, 740 So.2d 485, 487 (Ala.Crim.App.1999) (citing Smith v. State, 590 So.2d 388, 390 (Ala.Crim.App.1991)). | 1 | 1 |
Hall v. Stategreen1 sentence2010See Hall, 816 So.2d at 86 (holding that “comparable treatment of similarly situated jurors of both races tends to rebut any inference of discriminatory intent in the prosecutor’s strikes against black jurors”). | 1 | 1 |
Burgess v. Stategreen1 sentence2010(Wilson’s brief, at 52.) “ ‘[I]mpeachment of the evidence of a defendant and the matter of impairment of its weight are properly matters for argument of counsel....’” Burgess v. State, 827 So.2d at 162 (Ala.Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Mosley v. Stategreen1 sentence2010App.1998) (quoting Mosley v. State, 241 Ala. 132, 136 , 1 So.2d 593, 595 (1941)). | 1 | 1 |
Wilson v. Stategreen1 sentence2009Wilson v. State, 874 So.2d 1155, 1163 (Ala.Crim.App.2003) (holding that despite Wilson’s claim that prosecutor’s comments were based on facts not in evidence, he was not deprived of his due process rights because ‘“[a] prosecutor’s statement must be viewed in the context of all of the evidence presented and in the context of the complete closing arguments to the jury.’ Roberts v. State, 735 So.2d 1244, 1253 (Ala.Crim.App.1997), aff'd, 735 So.2d 1270 (Ala.1999)”). | 1 | 1 |
Roberts v. Stategreen1 sentence2009Wilson v. State, 874 So.2d 1155, 1163 (Ala.Crim.App.2003) (holding that despite Wilson’s claim that prosecutor’s comments were based on facts not in evidence, he was not deprived of his due process rights because ‘“[a] prosecutor’s statement must be viewed in the context of all of the evidence presented and in the context of the complete closing arguments to the jury.’ Roberts v. State, 735 So.2d 1244, 1253 (Ala.Crim.App.1997), aff'd, 735 So.2d 1270 (Ala.1999)”). | 1 | 1 |
| Life Ins. Co. of Georgia v. Smithgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ex Parte Third Generation, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Third Generation, Inc. v. Wilsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ex Parte Hamlettgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Wilson v. Waverlee Homes, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ex Parte Rhone
green
2 sentences2025As explained above in our discussion of the facts and procedural history of this case, in Wilson, 911 So. 2d 40 , this Court reversed the 100 CR-21-0109 circuit court's summary dismissal of Wilson's Rule 32 petition because it did not accept Wilson's amended petition, in violation of Ex parte Rhone, 900 So. 2d 455 (Ala. 2004). 2024As explained above in our discussion of the facts and procedural history of this case, in Wilson, 911 So. 2d 40 , this Court reversed the circuit court's summary dismissal of Wilson's Rule 32 petition because it did not accept Wilson's amended petition, in violation of Ex parte Rhone, 900 So. 2d 455 (Ala. 2004). | 3 | 2005–2025 |
Williams v. Taylor
green
2 sentences2025This Court has previously addressed "cumulative-effect" arguments as follows: " 'Taylor ... contends that the allegations offered in support of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must be considered cumulatively, and he cites Williams v. Taylor, 529 97 CR-21-0109 U.S. 362, 120 S. Ct. 1495 , 146 L. 2025This Court has previously addressed "cumulative-effect" arguments as follows: " 'Taylor ... contends that the allegations offered in support of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must be considered cumulatively, and he cites Williams v. Taylor, 529 97 CR-21-0109 U.S. 362, 120 S. Ct. 1495 , 146 L. | 2 | 2024–2025 |
Wilson v. State
green
2 sentences2025Wilson v. State, 777 So. 2d at 926 . 2024Wilson v. State, 777 So. 2d at 926 . | 2 | 2024–2025 |
Moore v. State
green
2 sentences2025Instead, as the circuit court pointed out when it summarily dismissed Wilson's claim, Wilson cited only one case -- Moore v. State, 661 So. 2d 770 (Ala. Crim. 2024Instead, as 87 CR-21-0109 the circuit court pointed out when it summarily dismissed Wilson's claim, Wilson cited only one case -- Moore v. State, 661 So. 2d 770 (Ala. Crim. | 2 | 2024–2025 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2025Wilson also argues that the circuit court erred when it dismissed his claims that the State "violated its constitutional obligations under Brady v. Maryland[, 373 U.S. 833 (1963)]" (Wilson's brief, p. 45); that the State made "repeated comments on [his] silence after receiving Miranda[ v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966),] warnings and invoking" his rights (Wilson's brief, p. 47); and that there was "[p]ervasive prosecutorial misconduct" during his trial (Wilson's brief, p. 49). 2024Wilson also argues that the circuit court erred when it dismissed his claims that the State "violated its constitutional obligations under Brady v. Maryland[, 373 U.S. 833 (1963)]" (Wilson's brief, p. 45); that the State made "repeated comments on [his] silence after receiving Miranda[ v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966),] warnings and invoking" his rights (Wilson's brief, p. 47); and that there was "[p]ervasive prosecutorial misconduct" during his trial (Wilson's brief, p. 49). | 2 | 2024–2025 |
Ring v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2025Under the principles clearly expressed by the Alabama Supreme Court in Ex parte Rhone, we are compelled to hold that the trial court erred to reversal when it denied Wilson's second motion to amend the petition. 13 CR-21-0109 "Wilson's revised third amended petition, filed on August 19, 2002, contains several claims related to Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S. Ct. 2428 , 153 L. 2025Under the principles clearly expressed by the Alabama Supreme Court in Ex parte Rhone, we are compelled to hold that the trial court erred to reversal when it denied Wilson's second motion to amend the petition. 13 CR-21-0109 "Wilson's revised third amended petition, filed on August 19, 2002, contains several claims related to Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S. Ct. 2428 , 153 L. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Brady v. Maryland
green
1 sentence2025Brady Claim Wilson argues that the circuit court erred when it dismissed his claim asserted pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), because, he says, the State "violated its constitutional obligations under Brady" when it "failed to provide a wealth of exculpatory evidence to [him]." (Wilson's brief, p. 45.) In his petition, Wilson alleged that the "State failed to comply with its discovery obligations under Brady v. Maryland." (Supp. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Nobis v. State
green
1 sentence2025Nobis v. State, 401 So. 2d 191 (Ala. Crim. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Ex Parte Third Generation, Inc.
green
1 sentence2012Id. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Wilson v. Berry
green
1 sentence2011After a trial, the trial court entered a judgment in favor of the Berrys declaring that they were entitled to a prescriptive easement in the road.” Wilson, 36 So.3d at 560 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Pace v. State
green
1 sentence2010Wilson next argues that “[t]he prosecutor inexplicably revealed to the entire [venire] panel the confidential voir dire responses of Jurors R.B. and J.W. concerning their discomfort with the death penalty.” (Wilson’s brief, at 65) (citing R. 94, 102.) According to Wilson, the prosecutor’s improper disclosure of R.B.’s and J.W.’s confidential voir dire responses “signaled to the panel that, if they shared potentially embarrassing information with the court, this information could be aired to the entire panel[ and created] a fear of exposure [that] undoubtedly intimidated potential jurors into b | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Connelly v. State
green
1 sentence2010App.1998) (quoting Mosley v. State, 241 Ala. 132, 136 , 1 So.2d 593, 595 (1941)). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Ex Parte Roberts
green
1 sentence2009Wilson v. State, 874 So.2d 1155, 1163 (Ala.Crim.App.2003) (holding that despite Wilson’s claim that prosecutor’s comments were based on facts not in evidence, he was not deprived of his due process rights because ‘“[a] prosecutor’s statement must be viewed in the context of all of the evidence presented and in the context of the complete closing arguments to the jury.’ Roberts v. State, 735 So.2d 1244, 1253 (Ala.Crim.App.1997), aff'd, 735 So.2d 1270 (Ala.1999)”). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Wilson v. State green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Bordenkircher v. Hayes green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Satterfield v. Winston Industries, Inc. green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Ex Parte Alabama Dept. of Transp. green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Harmelin v. Michigan green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Solem v. Helm red | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Glover v. State green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Wilson v. State green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Fidelity & Guar. Ins. Co. v. Sturdivant green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| State v. Blackburn green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Tuscaloosa Acoustical Systems, Inc. v. Moore neutral | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Terry v. Ohio green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.