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.
15 Alabama opinions name it 3 courts 1985–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
Price v. Stategreen2 sentences2014Therefore, a proper review of this determination requires that we give great deference to the trial judge’s discretion, because the judge was present and capable of observing the potential jurors and their responses.” Price v. State, 725 So.2d 1003, 1025 (Ala.Cr.App.1997), aff'd, 725 So.2d 1063 (Ala.1998), citing Wainwright v. Witt, [ 469 U.S. 412 (1985)]. “‘In Clemons v. State, 720 So.2d 961 (Ala.Cr.App.1996), aff'd, 720 So.2d 985 (Ala.1998), this court stated: “ ‘ “ ‘Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 , 88 S.Ct. 1770 , 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968), set the early standard for a court’s exclusion 2010Therefore, a proper review of this determination requires that we give great deference to the trial judge’s discretion, because the judge was present and capable of observing the potential jurors and their responses.” Price v. State, 725 So.2d 1003, 1025 (Ala.Cr.App.1997), aff'd, 725 So.2d 1063 (Ala.1998), citing Wainwright v. Witt, [ 469 U.S. 412 (1985) ]. “ ‘In Clemons v. State, 720 So.2d 961 (Ala.Cr.App.1996), aff'd, 720 So.2d 985 (Ala.1998), this court stated: “ ‘ “ ‘Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 , 88 S.Ct. 1770 , 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968), set the early standard for a court’s exclusio | 4 | 4 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Witherspoon v. Illinois
green
2 sentences2014Therefore, a proper review of this determination requires that we give great deference to the trial judge’s discretion, because the judge was present and capable of observing the potential jurors and their responses.” Price v. State, 725 So.2d 1003, 1025 (Ala.Cr.App.1997), aff'd, 725 So.2d 1063 (Ala.1998), citing Wainwright v. Witt, [ 469 U.S. 412 (1985)]. “‘In Clemons v. State, 720 So.2d 961 (Ala.Cr.App.1996), aff'd, 720 So.2d 985 (Ala.1998), this court stated: “ ‘ “ ‘Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 , 88 S.Ct. 1770 , 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968), set the early standard for a court’s exclusion 2014Therefore, a proper review of this determination requires that we give great deference to the trial judge’s discretion, because the judge was present and capable of observing the potential jurors and their responses.” Price v. State, 725 So.2d 1003, 1025 (Ala.Cr.App.1997), aff'd, 725 So.2d 1063 (Ala.1998), citing Wainwright v. Witt, [ 469 U.S. 412 (1985)]. “‘In Clemons v. State, 720 So.2d 961 (Ala.Cr.App.1996), aff'd, 720 So.2d 985 (Ala.1998), this court stated: “ ‘ “ ‘Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 , 88 S.Ct. 1770 , 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968), set the early standard for a court’s exclusion | 12 | 1996–2014 |
Clemons v. State
green
2 sentences2014Therefore, a proper review of this determination requires that we give great deference to the trial judge’s discretion, because the judge was present and capable of observing the potential jurors and their responses.” Price v. State, 725 So.2d 1003, 1025 (Ala.Cr.App.1997), aff'd, 725 So.2d 1063 (Ala.1998), citing Wainwright v. Witt, [ 469 U.S. 412 (1985)]. “‘In Clemons v. State, 720 So.2d 961 (Ala.Cr.App.1996), aff'd, 720 So.2d 985 (Ala.1998), this court stated: “ ‘ “ ‘Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 , 88 S.Ct. 1770 , 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968), set the early standard for a court’s exclusion 2012“In Clemons v. State, 720 So.2d 961 (Ala.Cr.App.1996), aff'd, 720 So.2d 985 (Ala.1998), this court stated: “ ‘ “Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 , 88 S.Ct. 1770 , 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968), set the early standard for a court’s exclusion for cause of venire-persons who oppose the death penalty. | 7 | 1998–2014 |
Ex Parte Clemons
green
2 sentences2014Therefore, a proper review of this determination requires that we give great deference to the trial judge’s discretion, because the judge was present and capable of observing the potential jurors and their responses.” Price v. State, 725 So.2d 1003, 1025 (Ala.Cr.App.1997), aff'd, 725 So.2d 1063 (Ala.1998), citing Wainwright v. Witt, [ 469 U.S. 412 (1985)]. “‘In Clemons v. State, 720 So.2d 961 (Ala.Cr.App.1996), aff'd, 720 So.2d 985 (Ala.1998), this court stated: “ ‘ “ ‘Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 , 88 S.Ct. 1770 , 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968), set the early standard for a court’s exclusion 2012“In Clemons v. State, 720 So.2d 961 (Ala.Cr.App.1996), aff'd, 720 So.2d 985 (Ala.1998), this court stated: “ ‘ “Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 , 88 S.Ct. 1770 , 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968), set the early standard for a court’s exclusion for cause of venire-persons who oppose the death penalty. | 7 | 1998–2014 |
Wainwright v. Witt
green
2 sentences2014Therefore, a proper review of this determination requires that we give great deference to the trial judge’s discretion, because the judge was present and capable of observing the potential jurors and their responses.” Price v. State, 725 So.2d 1003, 1025 (Ala.Cr.App.1997), aff'd, 725 So.2d 1063 (Ala.1998), citing Wainwright v. Witt, [ 469 U.S. 412 (1985)]. “‘In Clemons v. State, 720 So.2d 961 (Ala.Cr.App.1996), aff'd, 720 So.2d 985 (Ala.1998), this court stated: “ ‘ “ ‘Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 , 88 S.Ct. 1770 , 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968), set the early standard for a court’s exclusion 2010Therefore, a proper review of this determination requires that we give great deference to the trial judge’s discretion, because the judge was present and capable of observing the potential jurors and their responses.” Price v. State, 725 So.2d 1003, 1025 (Ala.Cr.App.1997), aff'd, 725 So.2d 1063 (Ala.1998), citing Wainwright v. Witt, [ 469 U.S. 412 (1985) ]. “ ‘In Clemons v. State, 720 So.2d 961 (Ala.Cr.App.1996), aff'd, 720 So.2d 985 (Ala.1998), this court stated: “ ‘ “ ‘Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 , 88 S.Ct. 1770 , 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968), set the early standard for a court’s exclusio | 4 | 1996–2014 |
Price v. State.
green
2 sentences2014Therefore, a proper review of this determination requires that we give great deference to the trial judge’s discretion, because the judge was present and capable of observing the potential jurors and their responses.” Price v. State, 725 So.2d 1003, 1025 (Ala.Cr.App.1997), aff'd, 725 So.2d 1063 (Ala.1998), citing Wainwright v. Witt, [ 469 U.S. 412 (1985)]. “‘In Clemons v. State, 720 So.2d 961 (Ala.Cr.App.1996), aff'd, 720 So.2d 985 (Ala.1998), this court stated: “ ‘ “ ‘Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 , 88 S.Ct. 1770 , 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968), set the early standard for a court’s exclusion 2010Therefore, a proper review of this determination requires that we give great deference to the trial judge’s discretion, because the judge was present and capable of observing the potential jurors and their responses.” Price v. State, 725 So.2d 1003, 1025 (Ala.Cr.App.1997), aff'd, 725 So.2d 1063 (Ala.1998), citing Wainwright v. Witt, [ 469 U.S. 412 (1985) ]. “ ‘In Clemons v. State, 720 So.2d 961 (Ala.Cr.App.1996), aff'd, 720 So.2d 985 (Ala.1998), this court stated: “ ‘ “ ‘Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 , 88 S.Ct. 1770 , 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968), set the early standard for a court’s exclusio | 4 | 1998–2014 |
Interstate Engineering, Inc. v. Burnette
green
1 sentence1998In other words, the jury was entitled to find that the natural and probable sequence of events which led to [the death of the plaintiff's son] was proximately caused by the defective condition of the . . . heat detector." *Page 193 Interstate Engineering, Inc. v. Burnette , 474 So.2d 624 , 628 (Ala. 1985). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Driver v. National SEC. Fire & Cas. Co.
green
1 sentence1996Driver, supra. We note initially that McKerley and Satterfield's complaint alleged that EDC's failure to provide smoke detectors prevented the occupants of the residence from receiving an early warning of the fire, and that this failure resulted in the deaths. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Kuenzel v. State
green
2 sentences1996Kuenzel v. State, 577 So.2d 474 (Ala.Cr.App.1990), aff'd, 577 So.2d 531 (Ala. 1991). [5] Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 , 88 S.Ct. 1770 , 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968), set the early standard for a court's exclusion for cause of venirepersons who oppose the death penalty. 1996Kuenzel v. State , 577 So.2d 474 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990), aff'd, 577 So.2d 531 (Ala. 1991). 5 Witherspoon v. Illinois , 391 U.S. 510 , 88 S.Ct. 1770 , 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968), set the early standard for a court's exclusion for cause of venirepersons who oppose the death penalty. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Ex Parte Kuenzel
green
2 sentences1996Kuenzel v. State, 577 So.2d 474 (Ala.Cr.App.1990), aff'd, 577 So.2d 531 (Ala. 1991). [5] Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 , 88 S.Ct. 1770 , 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968), set the early standard for a court's exclusion for cause of venirepersons who oppose the death penalty. 1996Kuenzel v. State , 577 So.2d 474 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990), aff'd, 577 So.2d 531 (Ala. 1991). 5 Witherspoon v. Illinois , 391 U.S. 510 , 88 S.Ct. 1770 , 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968), set the early standard for a court's exclusion for cause of venirepersons who oppose the death penalty. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
North Georgia Finishing, Inc. v. Di-Chem, Inc.
green
2 sentences1985In that case the Court states, as one of its reasons for striking down the Georgia statute, the fact that "There is no provision [in Georgia's pre-judgment garnishment law] for an early hearing at which the creditor would be required to demonstrate at least probable cause for the garnishment." 419 U.S. at 607 , 95 S.Ct. at 723 . 1985In that case the Court states, as one of its reasons for striking down the Georgia statute, the fact that "There is no provision [in Georgia's pre-judgment garnishment law] for an early hearing at which the creditor would be required to demonstrate at least probable cause for the garnishment." 419 U.S. at 607 , 95 S.Ct. at 723 . | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.