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.
13 Alabama opinions name it 3 courts 1922–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ex Parte Kyzergreen2 sentences2014Further, under’ § 13A-5-45(d), Ala.Code 1975, “[a]ny evidence which has probative value and is relevant to sentence shall be received at the sentencing hearing regardless of its admissibility under the exclusionary rules of evidence “This Court has often stated: “ ‘ “When considering whether a particular capital offense was ‘especially heinous, atrocious or cruel,’ this Court adheres to the standard set out in- Ex parte Kyzer, 399 So.2d 330, 334 (Ala.1981), namely, that the particular offense must be one of those ‘conscienceless or pitiless homicides which are unnecessarily torturous to the vi 2006P. "This Court has often stated: "`"When considering whether a particular capital offense was `especially heinous, atrocious or cruel,' this Court adheres to the standard set out in Ex parte Kyzer, 399 So.2d 330, 334 (Ala.1981), namely, that the particular offense must be one of those `conscienceless or pitiless homicides which are unnecessarily torturous to the victim.'" Duke v. State , 889 So.2d [1], 36 [(Ala.Crim.App.2002)]. " Yeomans v. State, 898 So.2d 878, 905 (Ala.Crim.App.2004). "`One factor this Court has considered particularly indicative that a murder is "especially heinous, atrocio | 7 | 8 |
Yeomans v. Stategreen2 sentences2014Further, under’ § 13A-5-45(d), Ala.Code 1975, “[a]ny evidence which has probative value and is relevant to sentence shall be received at the sentencing hearing regardless of its admissibility under the exclusionary rules of evidence “This Court has often stated: “ ‘ “When considering whether a particular capital offense was ‘especially heinous, atrocious or cruel,’ this Court adheres to the standard set out in- Ex parte Kyzer, 399 So.2d 330, 334 (Ala.1981), namely, that the particular offense must be one of those ‘conscienceless or pitiless homicides which are unnecessarily torturous to the vi 2006P. "This Court has often stated: "`"When considering whether a particular capital offense was `especially heinous, atrocious or cruel,' this Court adheres to the standard set out in Ex parte Kyzer, 399 So.2d 330, 334 (Ala.1981), namely, that the particular offense must be one of those `conscienceless or pitiless homicides which are unnecessarily torturous to the victim.'" Duke v. State , 889 So.2d [1], 36 [(Ala.Crim.App.2002)]. " Yeomans v. State, 898 So.2d 878, 905 (Ala.Crim.App.2004). "`One factor this Court has considered particularly indicative that a murder is "especially heinous, atrocio | 4 | 4 |
Duke v. Stategreen2 sentences2014Further, under’ § 13A-5-45(d), Ala.Code 1975, “[a]ny evidence which has probative value and is relevant to sentence shall be received at the sentencing hearing regardless of its admissibility under the exclusionary rules of evidence “This Court has often stated: “ ‘ “When considering whether a particular capital offense was ‘especially heinous, atrocious or cruel,’ this Court adheres to the standard set out in- Ex parte Kyzer, 399 So.2d 330, 334 (Ala.1981), namely, that the particular offense must be one of those ‘conscienceless or pitiless homicides which are unnecessarily torturous to the vi 2004This Court has often stated: “ ‘When considering whether a particular capital offense was “especially heinous, atrocious or cruel,” this Court adheres to the standard set out in Ex parte Kyzer, 399 So.2d 330, 334 (Ala.1981), namely, that the particular offense must be one of those “conscienceless or pitiless homicides which are unnecessarily torturous to the victim.’” Duke v. State, [ 889 So.2d 1, 36 (Ala.Crim.App.2002)].” Yeomans v. State, 898 So.2d 878, 905 (Ala.Crim.App.2004). | 2 | 2 |
Turner v. Stategreen1 sentence2014The aggravating circumstance that a murder is especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel compared to other offenses “may lawfully be applied if psychological or physical torture were inflicted on the victim.” Turner v. State, 924 So.2d 737, 795 (Ala.Crim.App.2002). | 1 | 1 |
Beckworth v. Stategreen1 sentence2014Further, under’ § 13A-5-45(d), Ala.Code 1975, “[a]ny evidence which has probative value and is relevant to sentence shall be received at the sentencing hearing regardless of its admissibility under the exclusionary rules of evidence “This Court has often stated: “ ‘ “When considering whether a particular capital offense was ‘especially heinous, atrocious or cruel,’ this Court adheres to the standard set out in- Ex parte Kyzer, 399 So.2d 330, 334 (Ala.1981), namely, that the particular offense must be one of those ‘conscienceless or pitiless homicides which are unnecessarily torturous to the vi | 1 | 1 |
Gross v. QMS, INC.green1 sentence2003Loan Ass'n , 559 So.2d 1075 (Ala. 1990))); Gross , 613 So.2d at 332-33 ("'It is well established that the issuance of injunctive relief is within the sound discretion of the trial court, especially when . . . the facts are in dispute and the evidence is presented ore tenus.'" (quoting Davis v. Hester , 582 So.2d 538 , 540 (Ala. 1991) (citation omitted))); Harkness , 529 So.2d at 1002 ("This Court adheres to the principle that the grant of a preliminary injunction will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. | 1 | 1 |
Harkness v. Scottsboro Newspapers, Inc.green1 sentence2003Loan Ass'n , 559 So.2d 1075 (Ala. 1990))); Gross , 613 So.2d at 332-33 ("'It is well established that the issuance of injunctive relief is within the sound discretion of the trial court, especially when . . . the facts are in dispute and the evidence is presented ore tenus.'" (quoting Davis v. Hester , 582 So.2d 538 , 540 (Ala. 1991) (citation omitted))); Harkness , 529 So.2d at 1002 ("This Court adheres to the principle that the grant of a preliminary injunction will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Stategreen1 sentence1991This Court adheres to the principle that even in a death case, "[a]s a general rule, the decision whether to voir dire prospective jurors individually or collectively is within the sound discretion of the trial court." Brown, 571 So.2d at 349. | 1 | 1 |
Henderson v. Stategreen1 sentence1991See also Henderson v. State, 583 So.2d 276 (Ala.Cr. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Continental Casualty Co. v. Ogburn
neutral
2 sentences1964Continental Casualty Co. v. Ogburn, 175 Ala. 357 , 57 So. 852 , Ann.Cas.1914D, 377; Union Central Relief Ass’n v. Johnson, 198 Ala. 488 , 73 So. 816 .” New York Life Ins. 1964Continental Casualty Co. v. Ogburn, 175 Ala. 357 , 57 So. 852 , Ann.Cas.1914D, 377; Union Central Relief Ass’n v. Johnson, 198 Ala. 488 , 73 So. 816 .” New York Life Ins. | 2 | 1932–1964 |
Martin v. FIRST FEDERAL SAV. & LOAN
green
1 sentence2003Loan Ass'n , 559 So.2d 1075 (Ala. 1990))); Gross , 613 So.2d at 332-33 ("'It is well established that the issuance of injunctive relief is within the sound discretion of the trial court, especially when . . . the facts are in dispute and the evidence is presented ore tenus.'" (quoting Davis v. Hester , 582 So.2d 538 , 540 (Ala. 1991) (citation omitted))); Harkness , 529 So.2d at 1002 ("This Court adheres to the principle that the grant of a preliminary injunction will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Davis v. Hester
green
1 sentence2003Loan Ass'n , 559 So.2d 1075 (Ala. 1990))); Gross , 613 So.2d at 332-33 ("'It is well established that the issuance of injunctive relief is within the sound discretion of the trial court, especially when . . . the facts are in dispute and the evidence is presented ore tenus.'" (quoting Davis v. Hester , 582 So.2d 538 , 540 (Ala. 1991) (citation omitted))); Harkness , 529 So.2d at 1002 ("This Court adheres to the principle that the grant of a preliminary injunction will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Union Central Relief Ass'n v. Johnson
green
2 sentences1964Continental Casualty Co. v. Ogburn, 175 Ala. 357 , 57 So. 852 , Ann.Cas.1914D, 377; Union Central Relief Ass’n v. Johnson, 198 Ala. 488 , 73 So. 816 .” New York Life Ins. 1964Continental Casualty Co. v. Ogburn, 175 Ala. 357 , 57 So. 852 , Ann.Cas.1914D, 377; Union Central Relief Ass’n v. Johnson, 198 Ala. 488 , 73 So. 816 .” New York Life Ins. | 1 | 1964–1964 |
Young v. State
neutral
1 sentence1922In Jackson v. State, 83 Ala. 76 , 3 South. 847 , the court adheres to this rule, saying: “The determination of this inquiry, as the determination in respect to the admissibility and competency of all evidence, lies within the province of the court.” In Young & Griffin v. State, 68 Ala. 569 , asserts no contrary rule. | 1 | 1922–1922 |
Jackson v. State
neutral
1 sentence1922In Jackson v. State, 83 Ala. 76 , 3 South. 847 , the court adheres to this rule, saying: “The determination of this inquiry, as the determination in respect to the admissibility and competency of all evidence, lies within the province of the court.” In Young & Griffin v. State, 68 Ala. 569 , asserts no contrary rule. | 1 | 1922–1922 |
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.