party seeking challenge in Alabama

2001"The party seeking to challenge a juror for cause must show that the questioned juror [was] due to be struck under § 12-16-150, Code of Alabama 1975, or on common law grounds." Smith v. State, 581 So.2d 497, 503 (Ala.Crim.App.1990), rev'd on other grounds, 581 So.2d 531 (Ala.1991).

1996In another capital case that involved a veniremember's acquaintance with the victim, Smith v. State , 581 So.2d 497 , 503 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990), rev'd on other grounds, 581 So.2d 531 (Ala. 1991), we addressed this same issue and stated: "The party seeking to challenge a juror for cause must show that the questioned juror is due to be struck under § 12-16-150 , Code of Alabama 1975, or on common law grounds. . . . [Where the appellant failed to challenge the juror for cause] the appellant must show that the trial court's failure to remove sua sponte the two prospective jurors was 'plain error.' "W

2012Although we comprehend the reasoning behind the rule announced in Page , which hinges on the idea that an erroneously certified judgment is, in fact, not a final judgment at all, Page, 585 F.2d at 338 , we believe that the better course is to require that a party seeking to challenge the propriety of a Rule 54(b) certification do so in a timely appeal from the certified judgment.

2010Although we comprehend the reasoning behind the rule announced in Page , which hinges on the idea that an erroneously certified judgment is, in fact, not a final judgment at all, Page, 585 F.2d at 338 , we believe that the better course is to require that a party seeking to challenge the propriety of a Rule 54(b) certification do so in a timely appeal from the certified judgment.

2014The Court in Keyes, supra, explained: “Indeed, in a case very similar to this one, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed a challenge to John McCain’s citizenship, holding that presidential qualification issues are best resolved in Congress. {Robinson v. Bowen (N.D.Cal.2008) 567 F.Supp.2d 1144, 1147 .) “The federal court noted that Title 8 United States Code section 15 sets forth a process for objecting to the President elect, and the Twentieth Amendment provides that, ‘if the President-elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President-elec

2012In so doing it specifically relied upon Lindsay and one other case, the decision of our own Court of Civil Appeals in Allen v. Briggs, 60 So.3d 899 (Ala.Civ.App.2010), quoting much of the passage from Allen that appears in the main opinion.

2010However, Horion Homes did not modify the requirement under § 6-6-15 that a party seeking to challenge an arbitration award initiate that challenge by filing, in the circuit court, a notice of appeal to the “appropriate appellate court.” Pursuant to the procedure set out in Horton Homes, the clerk of the circuit court then entered the arbitration award as the “conditional” judgment of the circuit court. 999 So.2d at 467 .

2001No response from this juror suggested that this juror could not "disregard her relationship with Assistant District Attorney and to render a fair and impartial verdict." Whitehead v. State, 777 So.2d 781, 811 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), aff'd, 777 So.2d 854 (Ala.2000).

1996In another capital case that involved a veniremember's acquaintance with the victim, Smith v. State , 581 So.2d 497 , 503 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990), rev'd on other grounds, 581 So.2d 531 (Ala. 1991), we addressed this same issue and stated: "The party seeking to challenge a juror for cause must show that the questioned juror is due to be struck under § 12-16-150 , Code of Alabama 1975, or on common law grounds. . . . [Where the appellant failed to challenge the juror for cause] the appellant must show that the trial court's failure to remove sua sponte the two prospective jurors was 'plain error.' "W

1996In another capital case that involved a veniremember's acquaintance with the victim, Smith v. State , 581 So.2d 497 , 503 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990), rev'd on other grounds, 581 So.2d 531 (Ala. 1991), we addressed this same issue and stated: "The party seeking to challenge a juror for cause must show that the questioned juror is due to be struck under § 12-16-150 , Code of Alabama 1975, or on common law grounds. . . . [Where the appellant failed to challenge the juror for cause] the appellant must show that the trial court's failure to remove sua sponte the two prospective jurors was 'plain error.' "W

1991McKinney v. Alabama Power Co., 414 So.2d 938 (Ala.1982).

1983Hajovsky v. Hajovsky , 267 Ala. 77 , 159 So.2d 194 (1963).

1983Hajovsky v. Hajovsky, 267 Ala. 77 , 159 So.2d 194 (1963).

1983AAA Sewing Machine Co. v. Shelby Finance Co., 384 So.2d 126 (Ala.Civ.App.1980).

1975The party seeking to claim the benefit of an estoppel must show detrimental reliance of a substantial character on his part. 28 Am.Jur.2d, Estoppel and Waiver, § 78, at p. 716; Mitchell v. Friedlander, 246 Ala. 115 , 19 So.2d 394 .

1975The party seeking to claim the benefit of an estoppel must show detrimental reliance of a substantial character on his part. 28 Am.Jur.2d, Estoppel and Waiver, § 78, at p. 716; Mitchell v. Friedlander, 246 Ala. 115 , 19 So.2d 394 .