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.
14 Alabama opinions name it 3 courts 1970–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bowers v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.green2 sentences2025See id. (describing "such matters as admissibility of evidence, including under the doctrine of curative admissibility," as being within the " ' "great discretion" ' of the trial court, Bowers v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 827 So. 2d 63, 71 (Ala. 2001) (quoting Sweeney v. Purvis, 665 So. 2d 926, 930 (Ala. 1995))"). 2025See id. (describing "such matters as admissibility of evidence, including under the doctrine of curative admissibility," as being within the " ' "great discretion" ' of the trial court, Bowers v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 827 So. 2d 63, 71 (Ala. 2001) (quoting Sweeney v. Purvis, 665 So. 2d 926, 930 (Ala. 1995))"). | 4 | 4 |
Sweeney v. Purvisgreen2 sentences2025See id. (describing "such matters as admissibility of evidence, including under the doctrine of curative admissibility," as being within the " ' "great discretion" ' of the trial court, Bowers v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 827 So. 2d 63, 71 (Ala. 2001) (quoting Sweeney v. Purvis, 665 So. 2d 926, 930 (Ala. 1995))"). 2025See id. (describing "such matters as admissibility of evidence, including under the doctrine of curative admissibility," as being within the " ' "great discretion" ' of the trial court, Bowers v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 827 So. 2d 63, 71 (Ala. 2001) (quoting Sweeney v. Purvis, 665 So. 2d 926, 930 (Ala. 1995))"). | 2 | 4 |
Kelley v. Stategreen2 sentences2025On appeal, Exxon contends that evidence as to the payment of Harrington's medical expenses by his employer's workers' compensation insurer should have been admitted at trial under the doctrine of curative admissibility. " ' "Curative Admissibility is a doctrine which holds that if a party introduces illegal evidence, his opponent has the 16 SC-2023-0401 and SC-2023-0424 unconditional right to rebut such evidence with other illegal evidence." ' "Kelley v. State, 405 So. 2d 728, 730 (Ala. Crim. 2025On appeal, Exxon contends that evidence as to the payment of Harrington's medical expenses by his employer's workers' compensation insurer should have been admitted at trial under the doctrine of curative admissibility. " ' "Curative Admissibility is a doctrine which holds that if a party introduces illegal evidence, his opponent has the 16 SC-2023-0401 and SC-2023-0424 unconditional right to rebut such evidence with other illegal evidence." ' "Kelley v. State, 405 So. 2d 728, 730 (Ala. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Ala. River Grp., Inc. v. Conecuh Timber, Inc.green2 sentences2025See id. (describing "such matters as admissibility of evidence, including under the doctrine of curative admissibility," as being within the " ' "great discretion" ' of the trial court, Bowers v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 827 So. 2d 63, 71 (Ala. 2001) (quoting Sweeney v. Purvis, 665 So. 2d 926, 930 (Ala. 1995))"). 2025See id. (describing "such matters as admissibility of evidence, including under the doctrine of curative admissibility," as being within the " ' "great discretion" ' of the trial court, Bowers v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 827 So. 2d 63, 71 (Ala. 2001) (quoting Sweeney v. Purvis, 665 So. 2d 926, 930 (Ala. 1995))"). | 2 | 2 |
Baptist Health Sys., Inc. v. Cantugreen2 sentences2025However, this doctrine is subject to the important qualification that matters not relevant to the issues on trial may not be brought out.' (emphasis added))." Baptist Health Sys., Inc. v. Cantu, 264 So. 3d 41, 46-47 (Ala. 2018). 2025However, this doctrine is subject to the important qualification that matters not relevant to the issues on trial may not be brought out.' (emphasis added))." Baptist Health Sys., Inc. v. Cantu, 264 So. 3d 41, 46-47 (Ala. 2018). | 2 | 2 |
Hubbard v. Stategreen2 sentences2023Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence § 14.01 (5th ed.1996). ' " 'A party who has brought out evidence on a certain subject has no valid complaint as to the trial court's action in allowing his opponent or adversary to introduce evidence on the same subject.' " ' Id., quoting Hubbard v. State, 471 So. 2d 497, 499 (Ala. Crim. 2007The court stated: “When one party opens the door to otherwise inadmissible evidence, the doctrine of ‘curative admissibility’ provides the opposing party with ‘the right to rebut such evidence with other illegal evidence.’ McElroy’s Alabama Evidence, § 14.01, p. 49 (5th ed.1996). ‘[T]he law [is] that even though a party introduces evidence that may be immaterial or illegal, his opponent has the right to rebut such evidence and this right is unconditional.’ Clark v. State, 54 Ala.App. 183, 186 , 306 So.2d 51, 54 (1974). ‘ “A party who has brought out evidence on a certain subject has no valid c | 2 | 2 |
Ex Parte DLHgreen2 sentences2023According to Peterson, Brandon's testimony "is exactly the scenario that the curative admissibility doctrine is meant to apply to." (Peterson's brief, p. 63.) 12 CR-2022-0642 "It is well settled that '[w]hen one party opens the door to otherwise inadmissible evidence, the doctrine of "curative admissibility" provides the opposing party with "the right to rebut such evidence with other illegal evidence." ' Ex parte D.L.H., 806 So. 2d 1190, 1193 (Ala. 2001), quoting Charles W. 2007The Alabama Supreme Court in Ex parte D.L.H., 806 So.2d 1190 (Ala.2001), *904 referred to this rule of evidence as the doctrine of curative admissibility. | 1 | 2 |
Kroger Company v. Puckettgreen2 sentences2013See Kroger Co. v. Puckett, 351 So.2d 582, 588 (Ala.Civ.App.1977). 1982See Nellis v. Allen , 268 Ala. 259 , 261 , 105 So.2d 659 (1958); Wilkinson v. Duncan , 294 Ala. 509 , 512 , 319 So.2d 253 (1975); Kroger Company v. Puckett , 351 So.2d 582 , 588 (Ala.Civ.App. 1977); See generally Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence § 15.01 (3d Ed. 1977). | 1 | 2 |
Crawford v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2008Brown relies upon Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 59 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), which holds that “[tjestimonial statements of witnesses absent from trial have been admitted only where the declar-ant is unavailable, and only where the defendant has had a prior opportunity to cross-examine.” The Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that the content of Smith’s statements was admissible under the doctrine of curative admissibility, reasoning that defense counsel’s cross-examination of Ha-gler opened the door for the prosecutor, on redirect, to elicit the content of Smith’s out- 2008Brown relies upon Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 59 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), which holds that “[tjestimonial statements of witnesses absent from trial have been admitted only where the declar-ant is unavailable, and only where the defendant has had a prior opportunity to cross-examine.” The Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that the content of Smith’s statements was admissible under the doctrine of curative admissibility, reasoning that defense counsel’s cross-examination of Ha-gler opened the door for the prosecutor, on redirect, to elicit the content of Smith’s out- | 1 | 2 |
Cook v. Latimergreen2 sentences2013Cook v. Latimer, 274 Ala. 283, 287 , 147 So.2d 831, 834 (1962). 2013Cook v. Latimer, 274 Ala. 283, 287 , 147 So.2d 831, 834 (1962). | 1 | 1 |
Clark v. Stategreen2 sentences2007The court stated: “When one party opens the door to otherwise inadmissible evidence, the doctrine of ‘curative admissibility’ provides the opposing party with ‘the right to rebut such evidence with other illegal evidence.’ McElroy’s Alabama Evidence, § 14.01, p. 49 (5th ed.1996). ‘[T]he law [is] that even though a party introduces evidence that may be immaterial or illegal, his opponent has the right to rebut such evidence and this right is unconditional.’ Clark v. State, 54 Ala.App. 183, 186 , 306 So.2d 51, 54 (1974). ‘ “A party who has brought out evidence on a certain subject has no valid c 2007The court stated: “When one party opens the door to otherwise inadmissible evidence, the doctrine of ‘curative admissibility’ provides the opposing party with ‘the right to rebut such evidence with other illegal evidence.’ McElroy’s Alabama Evidence, § 14.01, p. 49 (5th ed.1996). ‘[T]he law [is] that even though a party introduces evidence that may be immaterial or illegal, his opponent has the right to rebut such evidence and this right is unconditional.’ Clark v. State, 54 Ala.App. 183, 186 , 306 So.2d 51, 54 (1974). ‘ “A party who has brought out evidence on a certain subject has no valid c | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Stategreen1 sentence2007The court stated: “When one party opens the door to otherwise inadmissible evidence, the doctrine of ‘curative admissibility’ provides the opposing party with ‘the right to rebut such evidence with other illegal evidence.’ McElroy’s Alabama Evidence, § 14.01, p. 49 (5th ed.1996). ‘[T]he law [is] that even though a party introduces evidence that may be immaterial or illegal, his opponent has the right to rebut such evidence and this right is unconditional.’ Clark v. State, 54 Ala.App. 183, 186 , 306 So.2d 51, 54 (1974). ‘ “A party who has brought out evidence on a certain subject has no valid c | 1 | 1 |
Tinker v. Stategreen1 sentence2007See Tinker v. State, 932 So.2d 168 (Ala.Crim.App.2005) (this court noted that we did not have to reach the issue of alleged Crawford, v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), violation because evidence was admissible under the doctrine of curative admissibility). | 1 | 1 |
Nellis v. Allengreen2 sentences1982See Nellis v. Allen , 268 Ala. 259 , 261 , 105 So.2d 659 (1958); Wilkinson v. Duncan , 294 Ala. 509 , 512 , 319 So.2d 253 (1975); Kroger Company v. Puckett , 351 So.2d 582 , 588 (Ala.Civ.App. 1977); See generally Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence § 15.01 (3d Ed. 1977). 1982See Nellis v. Allen , 268 Ala. 259 , 261 , 105 So.2d 659 (1958); Wilkinson v. Duncan , 294 Ala. 509 , 512 , 319 So.2d 253 (1975); Kroger Company v. Puckett , 351 So.2d 582 , 588 (Ala.Civ.App. 1977); See generally Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence § 15.01 (3d Ed. 1977). | 1 | 1 |
Sanders v. Stategreen2 sentences1977See Sanders v. State , 48 Ala. App. 589 , 266 So.2d 797 , rev. on other grounds 289 Ala. 224 , 266 So.2d 802 (recognizing the doctrine of curative admissibility). 1977See Sanders v. State , 48 Ala. App. 589 , 266 So.2d 797 , rev. on other grounds 289 Ala. 224 , 266 So.2d 802 (recognizing the doctrine of curative admissibility). | 1 | 1 |
Sanders v. Stategreen2 sentences1977See Sanders v. State , 48 Ala. App. 589 , 266 So.2d 797 , rev. on other grounds 289 Ala. 224 , 266 So.2d 802 (recognizing the doctrine of curative admissibility). 1977See Sanders v. State , 48 Ala. App. 589 , 266 So.2d 797 , rev. on other grounds 289 Ala. 224 , 266 So.2d 802 (recognizing the doctrine of curative admissibility). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wyrick v. State
green
2 sentences1986Under the doctrine of curative admissibility, " '[i]f illegal evidence is introduced by one party and admitted, then the opponent has the right to introduce illegal evidence in rebuttal. . . .' " Morgan v. State , 440 So.2d 1240 , 1241 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983), quoting Wyrick v. State , 409 So.2d 969 (Ala.Cr.App. 1981), and the "appellant cannot [later] be heard to complain about exploration of the issue . . . which he himself improperly injected into the trial." Id. 1986Under the doctrine of curative admissibility, " '[i]f illegal evidence is introduced by one party and admitted, then the opponent has the right to introduce illegal evidence in rebuttal. . . .' " Morgan v. State , 440 So.2d 1240 , 1241 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983), quoting Wyrick v. State , 409 So.2d 969 (Ala.Cr.App. 1981), and the "appellant cannot [later] be heard to complain about exploration of the issue . . . which he himself improperly injected into the trial." Id. | 2 | 1983–1986 |
Ex Parte Brown
green
1 sentence2007The court stated: “When one party opens the door to otherwise inadmissible evidence, the doctrine of ‘curative admissibility’ provides the opposing party with ‘the right to rebut such evidence with other illegal evidence.’ McElroy’s Alabama Evidence, § 14.01, p. 49 (5th ed.1996). ‘[T]he law [is] that even though a party introduces evidence that may be immaterial or illegal, his opponent has the right to rebut such evidence and this right is unconditional.’ Clark v. State, 54 Ala.App. 183, 186 , 306 So.2d 51, 54 (1974). ‘ “A party who has brought out evidence on a certain subject has no valid c | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Noble v. State
green
2 sentences1991Furthermore, a witness can be impeached by a contradictory statement relative to a matter that is material to the issues at trial, Noble v. State , 253 Ala. 519 , 45 So.2d 857 (1950); and, under the doctrine of curative admissibility, when testimony is injurious to a party against whom a witness has been called, that party has the right to contradict the witness's testimony about the matter testified to. 1991Furthermore, a witness can be impeached by a contradictory statement relative to a matter that is material to the issues at trial, Noble v. State , 253 Ala. 519 , 45 So.2d 857 (1950); and, under the doctrine of curative admissibility, when testimony is injurious to a party against whom a witness has been called, that party has the right to contradict the witness's testimony about the matter testified to. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Morgan v. State
green
1 sentence1986Under the doctrine of curative admissibility, " '[i]f illegal evidence is introduced by one party and admitted, then the opponent has the right to introduce illegal evidence in rebuttal. . . .' " Morgan v. State , 440 So.2d 1240 , 1241 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983), quoting Wyrick v. State , 409 So.2d 969 (Ala.Cr.App. 1981), and the "appellant cannot [later] be heard to complain about exploration of the issue . . . which he himself improperly injected into the trial." Id. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Wilkinson v. Duncan
neutral
2 sentences1982See Nellis v. Allen , 268 Ala. 259 , 261 , 105 So.2d 659 (1958); Wilkinson v. Duncan , 294 Ala. 509 , 512 , 319 So.2d 253 (1975); Kroger Company v. Puckett , 351 So.2d 582 , 588 (Ala.Civ.App. 1977); See generally Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence § 15.01 (3d Ed. 1977). 1982See Nellis v. Allen , 268 Ala. 259 , 261 , 105 So.2d 659 (1958); Wilkinson v. Duncan , 294 Ala. 509 , 512 , 319 So.2d 253 (1975); Kroger Company v. Puckett , 351 So.2d 582 , 588 (Ala.Civ.App. 1977); See generally Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence § 15.01 (3d Ed. 1977). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Johnson v. State
green
2 sentences1970Johnson v. State, 265 Ala. 360 , 91 So.2d 476 . 1970Johnson v. State, 265 Ala. 360 , 91 So.2d 476 . | 1 | 1970–1970 |
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.