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.
16 Alabama opinions name it 3 courts 1995–2005 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Turner v. Stategreen2 sentences2004However, in Turner v. State, 746 So.2d 355 (Ala.1998), the Alabama Supreme Court stated: “In this ease, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that the Legislature’s enactment of § 36-18-30 did not affect the three-pronged Perry test. 746 So.2d 352, 353 (1996). 2004However, in Turner v. State, 746 So.2d 355 (Ala.1998), the Alabama Supreme Court stated: “In this ease, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that the Legislature’s enactment of § 36-18-30 did not affect the three-pronged Perry test. 746 So.2d 352, 353 (1996). | 3 | 3 |
Ex Parte Perrygreen2 sentences2004Although the appellate courts of this State have not specifically addressed the issue of the accreditation of a state forensics lab, other jurisdictions have addressed the issue and ruled that matters of accreditation affect the weight of the evidence and not its admissibility.” (State’s brief at pp. 13-18.) At the Ex parte Perry, 586 So.2d 242 (Ala.1991), hearing, J.H.H. argued that the State had failed to meet the third prong of the Perry test — “In this particular case, did the testing laboratory perform generally accepted scientific techniques without error in the performance or interpreta 2004Although the appellate courts of this State have not specifically addressed the issue of the accreditation of a state forensics lab, other jurisdictions have addressed the issue and ruled that matters of accreditation affect the weight of the evidence and not its admissibility.” (State’s brief at pp. 13-18.) At the Ex parte Perry, 586 So.2d 242 (Ala.1991), hearing, J.H.H. argued that the State had failed to meet the third prong of the Perry test — “In this particular case, did the testing laboratory perform generally accepted scientific techniques without error in the performance or interpreta | 1 | 6 |
Ex Parte Perrygreen2 sentences2003The Alabama Supreme Court held that the trial court had erred in denying Perry's motion to suppress because, the Court stated, "the affidavit alone was insufficient to support a valid warrant, and there is no indication in the record that the district court was privy to any additional information before issuing the warrant." Ex parte Perry , 814 So.2d at 843 . 2001Based on the Supreme Court’s opinion in Ex parte Perry, 814 So.2d 840 (Ala.2001), this Court has no choice other than to find that the trial court erred when it denied Perry’s motion to suppress the cocaine seized as the result of the search of his residence. | 1 | 2 |
Lowman v. Piedmont Exec. Shirt Mfg. Co.green2 sentences2001Co., 547 So.2d 90 (Ala.1989); in Glenn this Court applied the Perry rule to deposition testimony. 2001Co., 547 So.2d 90 (Ala.1989); in Glenn this Court applied the Perry rule to deposition testimony. | 1 | 2 |
Perry v. Mobile Countygreen2 sentences1999See Perry, supra, which was followed in Glenn v. Vulcan Materials Co., 534 So.2d 598 (Ala. 1988), overruled on other grounds, Lowman v. Piedmont Executive Shirt Mfg.Co., 547 So.2d 90 (Ala. 1989); in Glenn this Court applied the Perry rule to deposition testimony. 1999See Perry, supra, which was followed in Glenn v. Vulcan Materials Co., 534 So.2d 598 (Ala. 1988), overruled on other grounds, Lowman v. Piedmont Executive Shirt Mfg.Co., 547 So.2d 90 (Ala. 1989); in Glenn this Court applied the Perry rule to deposition testimony. | 1 | 2 |
Hughes v. Hughesgreen2 sentences2003P. "It is not the function of this court to search a record on appeal to find evidence to support a party's argument," and "it is not the function of the appellate court `to make and address legal arguments for a party based on undelineated general propositions not supported by sufficient authority or argument.'" Hughes v. Hughes, 754 So.2d 636, 637 (Ala.Civ.App.1999) (quoting Dykes v. Lane Trucking, Inc., 652 So.2d 248, 251 (Ala.1994)). 2003P. "It is not the function of this court to search a record on appeal to find evidence to support a party's argument," and "it is not the function of the appellate court `to make and address legal arguments for a party based on undelineated general propositions not supported by sufficient authority or argument.'" Hughes v. Hughes , 754 So.2d 636 , 637 (Ala.Civ.App. 1999) (quoting Dykes v. Lane Trucking, Inc. , 652 So.2d 248 , 251 (Ala. 1994)). | 1 | 1 |
Dykes v. Lane Trucking, Inc.green2 sentences2003P. "It is not the function of this court to search a record on appeal to find evidence to support a party's argument," and "it is not the function of the appellate court `to make and address legal arguments for a party based on undelineated general propositions not supported by sufficient authority or argument.'" Hughes v. Hughes, 754 So.2d 636, 637 (Ala.Civ.App.1999) (quoting Dykes v. Lane Trucking, Inc., 652 So.2d 248, 251 (Ala.1994)). 2003P. "It is not the function of this court to search a record on appeal to find evidence to support a party's argument," and "it is not the function of the appellate court `to make and address legal arguments for a party based on undelineated general propositions not supported by sufficient authority or argument.'" Hughes v. Hughes , 754 So.2d 636 , 637 (Ala.Civ.App. 1999) (quoting Dykes v. Lane Trucking, Inc. , 652 So.2d 248 , 251 (Ala. 1994)). | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Holtongreen1 sentence2001It doesn't ... transmit diseases as readily in a dried state as it does in a liquid state, which is why we make a dried blood stain from all individuals that have their blood turned into us." (R. 292-93.) [11] At the end of the prosecution's questioning of Brewer outside of the jury's presence before Brewer testified before the jury, the prosecutor stated, "Your Honor, at this time, that's all the questions as to the prongs of the Perry test." (R. 330.) [12] In Ex parte Holton, 590 So.2d 918, 919-20 (Ala.1991), the Alabama Supreme Court stated: "This opinion sets forth an analysis to be follow | 1 | 1 |
Gord v. Stategreen1 sentence2001However, I write to express my agreement with the following language in Justice Brown’s dissent: “[A]lthough the affidavit at issue here was ‘not a model of clarity,’ the affidavit nevertheless set forth a sufficient ‘ “nexus between the objects to be seized and the premises searched,” ’ quoting Gord v. State, 475 So.2d 900, 905 (Ala.Crim.App.1985). | 1 | 1 |
Glenn v. Vulcan Materials Co.green2 sentences1999See Perry, supra, which was followed in Glenn v. Vulcan Materials Co., 534 So.2d 598 (Ala. 1988), overruled on other grounds, Lowman v. Piedmont Executive Shirt Mfg.Co., 547 So.2d 90 (Ala. 1989); in Glenn this Court applied the Perry rule to deposition testimony. 1999See Perry, supra, which was followed in Glenn v. Vulcan Materials Co., 534 So.2d 598 (Ala. 1988), overruled on other grounds, Lowman v. Piedmont Executive Shirt Mfg.Co., 547 So.2d 90 (Ala. 1989); in Glenn this Court applied the Perry rule to deposition testimony. | 1 | 1 |
Hoosier v. Stategreen2 sentences1998See Hoosier v. State, 612 So.2d 1352 (Ala.Crim.App. 1992); Rivers v. Black, 259 Ala. 528 , 68 So.2d 2 (1953). [8] Moreover, although we conclude that the Perry standard of admissibility has been replaced with respect to DNA evidence, the following discovery and burden-of-proof guidelines established in Perry, 586 So.2d at 255 , and as modified for the Daubert test, remain viable: "1. 1998See Hoosier v. State, 612 So.2d 1352 (Ala.Crim.App. 1992); Rivers v. Black, 259 Ala. 528 , 68 So.2d 2 (1953). [8] Moreover, although we conclude that the Perry standard of admissibility has been replaced with respect to DNA evidence, the following discovery and burden-of-proof guidelines established in Perry, 586 So.2d at 255 , and as modified for the Daubert test, remain viable: "1. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Turner v. State
green
2 sentences2004However, in Turner v. State, 746 So.2d 355 (Ala.1998), the Alabama Supreme Court stated: “In this ease, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that the Legislature’s enactment of § 36-18-30 did not affect the three-pronged Perry test. 746 So.2d 352, 353 (1996). 2004However, in Turner v. State, 746 So.2d 355 (Ala.1998), the Alabama Supreme Court stated: “In this ease, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that the Legislature’s enactment of § 36-18-30 did not affect the three-pronged Perry test. 746 So.2d 352, 353 (1996). | 4 | 1999–2004 |
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
green
2 sentences2001The Alabama Legislature rejected the Perry test when it enacted § 36-18-30, which governs the admission of DNA evidence at Thomas's trial [17] and provides the following: "Expert testimony or evidence relating to the use of genetic markers contained in or derived from DNA for identification purposes shall be admissible and accepted as evidence in all cases arising in all courts of this state, provided, however, the trial court shall be satisfied that the expert testimony or evidence meets the criteria for admissibility as set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Daubert []v. Merrell Dow 2001The Alabama Legislature rejected the Perry test when it enacted § 36-18-30, which governs the admission of DNA evidence at Thomas's trial [17] and provides the following: "Expert testimony or evidence relating to the use of genetic markers contained in or derived from DNA for identification purposes shall be admissible and accepted as evidence in all cases arising in all courts of this state, provided, however, the trial court shall be satisfied that the expert testimony or evidence meets the criteria for admissibility as set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Daubert []v. Merrell Dow | 2 | 1996–2001 |
Olsen v. Moffat Road Veterinary Clinic
green
1 sentence2005The trial court denied Perry's motion on the ground that "mailing [i]s not the same as filing" a claim and that Olsen v. Moffat Road Veterinary Clinic , 441 So.2d 971 (Ala.Civ.App. 1983), cited by the City, is controlling. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Smith v. State
green
1 sentence2005Smith v. State, 677 So.2d 1240 (Ala.Crim.App.1995). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Wilson v. Waverlee Homes, Inc.
green
2 sentences1999In Southern Energy Homes, Inc. v. Lee, 732 So.2d 994 (Ala.1999), this Court adopted the rationale of the United States district court in Wilson v. Waverlee Homes, Inc., 954 F.Supp. 1530 (M.D.Ala. 1997), affirmed, 127 F.3d 40 (11th Cir.1997) (table), and Boyd v. Homes of Legend, Inc., 981 F.Supp. 1423 (M.D.Ala.1997). 1999In Southern Energy Homes, Inc. v. Lee , 732 So.2d 994 (Ala. 1999), this Court adopted the rationale of the United States district court in Wilson v. Waverlee Homes, Inc. , 954 F. Supp. 1530 (M.D. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Southern Energy Homes, Inc. v. Lee
green
2 sentences1999In Southern Energy Homes, Inc. v. Lee, 732 So.2d 994 (Ala.1999), this Court adopted the rationale of the United States district court in Wilson v. Waverlee Homes, Inc., 954 F.Supp. 1530 (M.D.Ala. 1997), affirmed, 127 F.3d 40 (11th Cir.1997) (table), and Boyd v. Homes of Legend, Inc., 981 F.Supp. 1423 (M.D.Ala.1997). 1999In Southern Energy Homes, Inc. v. Lee , 732 So.2d 994 (Ala. 1999), this Court adopted the rationale of the United States district court in Wilson v. Waverlee Homes, Inc. , 954 F. Supp. 1530 (M.D. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Boyd v. Homes of Legend, Inc.
green
1 sentence1999In Southern Energy Homes, Inc. v. Lee, 732 So.2d 994 (Ala.1999), this Court adopted the rationale of the United States district court in Wilson v. Waverlee Homes, Inc., 954 F.Supp. 1530 (M.D.Ala. 1997), affirmed, 127 F.3d 40 (11th Cir.1997) (table), and Boyd v. Homes of Legend, Inc., 981 F.Supp. 1423 (M.D.Ala.1997). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
McDuffie v. First Union National
green
1 sentence1999In Southern Energy Homes, Inc. v. Lee, 732 So.2d 994 (Ala.1999), this Court adopted the rationale of the United States district court in Wilson v. Waverlee Homes, Inc., 954 F.Supp. 1530 (M.D.Ala. 1997), affirmed, 127 F.3d 40 (11th Cir.1997) (table), and Boyd v. Homes of Legend, Inc., 981 F.Supp. 1423 (M.D.Ala.1997). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Rivers v. Black
green
2 sentences1998See Hoosier v. State, 612 So.2d 1352 (Ala.Crim.App. 1992); Rivers v. Black, 259 Ala. 528 , 68 So.2d 2 (1953). [8] Moreover, although we conclude that the Perry standard of admissibility has been replaced with respect to DNA evidence, the following discovery and burden-of-proof guidelines established in Perry, 586 So.2d at 255 , and as modified for the Daubert test, remain viable: "1. 1998See Hoosier v. State, 612 So.2d 1352 (Ala.Crim.App. 1992); Rivers v. Black, 259 Ala. 528 , 68 So.2d 2 (1953). [8] Moreover, although we conclude that the Perry standard of admissibility has been replaced with respect to DNA evidence, the following discovery and burden-of-proof guidelines established in Perry, 586 So.2d at 255 , and as modified for the Daubert test, remain viable: "1. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Tuscaloosa Truck & Tractor Co. v. Stewart
green
2 sentences1998See Hoosier v. State, 612 So.2d 1352 (Ala.Crim.App. 1992); Rivers v. Black, 259 Ala. 528 , 68 So.2d 2 (1953). [8] Moreover, although we conclude that the Perry standard of admissibility has been replaced with respect to DNA evidence, the following discovery and burden-of-proof guidelines established in Perry, 586 So.2d at 255 , and as modified for the Daubert test, remain viable: "1. 1998See Hoosier v. State, 612 So.2d 1352 (Ala.Crim.App. 1992); Rivers v. Black, 259 Ala. 528 , 68 So.2d 2 (1953). [8] Moreover, although we conclude that the Perry standard of admissibility has been replaced with respect to DNA evidence, the following discovery and burden-of-proof guidelines established in Perry, 586 So.2d at 255 , and as modified for the Daubert test, remain viable: "1. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Frye v. United States
red
2 sentences1995Frye v. United States , 293 F. 1013 (D.C.App.Ct. 1923). 1995Frye v. United States , 293 F. 1013 (D.C.App.Ct. 1923). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.