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 2 courts 2002–2026 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dixon v. Hardeygreen2 sentences2026See Dixon v. Hardey, 591 So. 2d 3 (Ala. 1991); Knop v. McCain, 561 So. 2d 229 (Ala. 1989); Ex parte Rutledge, 523 So. 2d 1118 (Ala. 1988); Ex parte Beam, 512 So. 2d 723 (Ala. 1987); Uptain v. State, 534 So. 2d 686, 688 (Ala. Crim. 2015See Dixon v. Hardey, 591 So.2d 3 (Ala.1991); Knop v. McCain, 561 So.2d 229 (Ala.1989); Ex parte Rutledge, 523 So.2d 1118 (Ala. 1988); Ex parte Beam, 512 So.2d 723 (Ala.1987); Uptain v. State, 534 So.2d 686, 688 (Ala.Crim.App.1988) (quoting Swain and citing Beam and Rutledge); Mason v. State, 536 So.2d 127, 129 (Ala.Crim.App.1988) (quoting Uptain). “... [T]his Court has returned to the ‘harmless-error’ analysis articulated in the Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81 , 108 S.Ct. 2273 , 101 L.Ed.2d 80 (1988), and [United States v.] Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304 , 120 S.Ct. 774 , 145 L.Ed.2d 792 (2000), | 13 | 13 |
Uptain v. Stategreen2 sentences2026See Dixon v. Hardey, 591 So. 2d 3 (Ala. 1991); Knop v. McCain, 561 So. 2d 229 (Ala. 1989); Ex parte Rutledge, 523 So. 2d 1118 (Ala. 1988); Ex parte Beam, 512 So. 2d 723 (Ala. 1987); Uptain v. State, 534 So. 2d 686, 688 (Ala. Crim. 2015See Dixon v. Hardey, 591 So.2d 3 (Ala.1991); Knop v. McCain, 561 So.2d 229 (Ala.1989); Ex parte Rutledge, 523 So.2d 1118 (Ala. 1988); Ex parte Beam, 512 So.2d 723 (Ala.1987); Uptain v. State, 534 So.2d 686, 688 (Ala.Crim.App.1988) (quoting Swain and citing Beam and Rutledge); Mason v. State, 536 So.2d 127, 129 (Ala.Crim.App.1988) (quoting Uptain). “... [T]his Court has returned to the ‘harmless-error’ analysis articulated in the Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81 , 108 S.Ct. 2273 , 101 L.Ed.2d 80 (1988), and [United States v.] Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304 , 120 S.Ct. 774 , 145 L.Ed.2d 792 (2000), | 13 | 13 |
Mason v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See Dixon v. Hardey, 591 So.2d 3 (Ala.1991); Knop v. McCain, 561 So.2d 229 (Ala.1989); Ex parte Rutledge, 523 So.2d 1118 (Ala. 1988); Ex parte Beam, 512 So.2d 723 (Ala.1987); Uptain v. State, 534 So.2d 686, 688 (Ala.Crim.App.1988) (quoting Swain and citing Beam and Rutledge); Mason v. State, 536 So.2d 127, 129 (Ala.Crim.App.1988) (quoting Uptain). “... [T]his Court has returned to the ‘harmless-error’ analysis articulated in the Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81 , 108 S.Ct. 2273 , 101 L.Ed.2d 80 (1988), and [United States v.] Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304 , 120 S.Ct. 774 , 145 L.Ed.2d 792 (2000), 2012See Dixon v. Hardey, 591 So.2d 3 (Ala.1991); Knop v. McCain, 561 So.2d 229 (Ala.1989); Ex parte Rutledge, 523 So.2d 1118 (Ala.1988); Ex parte Beam, 512 So.2d 723 (Ala.1987); Uptain v. State, 534 So.2d 686, 688 (Ala.Crim.App.1988) (quoting Swain and citing Beam and Rutledge); Mason v. State 536 So.2d 127, 129 (Ala.Crim.App.1988) (quoting Uptain). “... [T]his Court has returned to the ‘harmless:error’ analysis articulated in the Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81 , 108 S.Ct. 2273 , 101 L.Ed.2d 80 (1988), and [United States v.] Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304 , 120 S.Ct. 774 , 145 L.Ed.2d 792 (2000), d | 12 | 12 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Batson v. Kentucky
green
2 sentences2026However, in Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202, 219 , 85 S.Ct. 824 , 13 L.Ed.2d 759 (1965), overruled on other grounds, Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), the United States Supreme Court stated, in dicta, that "[t]he denial or impairment of the right is reversible error without a showing of prejudice." (Emphasis added [in Bethea].) Some decisions of this Court as well as of the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals reflect an adoption of this reasoning. 2026However, in Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202, 219 , 85 S.Ct. 824 , 13 L.Ed.2d 759 (1965), overruled on other grounds, Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), the United States Supreme Court stated, in dicta, that "[t]he denial or impairment of the right is reversible error without a showing of prejudice." (Emphasis added [in Bethea].) Some decisions of this Court as well as of the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals reflect an adoption of this reasoning. | 13 | 2002–2026 |
Knop v. McCain
green
2 sentences2026See Dixon v. Hardey, 591 So. 2d 3 (Ala. 1991); Knop v. McCain, 561 So. 2d 229 (Ala. 1989); Ex parte Rutledge, 523 So. 2d 1118 (Ala. 1988); Ex parte Beam, 512 So. 2d 723 (Ala. 1987); Uptain v. State, 534 So. 2d 686, 688 (Ala. Crim. 2015See Dixon v. Hardey, 591 So.2d 3 (Ala.1991); Knop v. McCain, 561 So.2d 229 (Ala.1989); Ex parte Rutledge, 523 So.2d 1118 (Ala. 1988); Ex parte Beam, 512 So.2d 723 (Ala.1987); Uptain v. State, 534 So.2d 686, 688 (Ala.Crim.App.1988) (quoting Swain and citing Beam and Rutledge); Mason v. State, 536 So.2d 127, 129 (Ala.Crim.App.1988) (quoting Uptain). “... [T]his Court has returned to the ‘harmless-error’ analysis articulated in the Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81 , 108 S.Ct. 2273 , 101 L.Ed.2d 80 (1988), and [United States v.] Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304 , 120 S.Ct. 774 , 145 L.Ed.2d 792 (2000), | 13 | 2002–2026 |
Swain v. Alabama
red
2 sentences2026However, in Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202, 219 , 85 S.Ct. 824 , 13 L.Ed.2d 759 (1965), overruled on other grounds, Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), the United States Supreme Court stated, in dicta, that "[t]he denial or impairment of the right is reversible error without a showing of prejudice." (Emphasis added [in Bethea].) Some decisions of this Court as well as of the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals reflect an adoption of this reasoning. 2026However, in Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202, 219 , 85 S.Ct. 824 , 13 L.Ed.2d 759 (1965), overruled on other grounds, Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), the United States Supreme Court stated, in dicta, that "[t]he denial or impairment of the right is reversible error without a showing of prejudice." (Emphasis added [in Bethea].) Some decisions of this Court as well as of the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals reflect an adoption of this reasoning. | 13 | 2002–2026 |
Ex Parte Beam
green
2 sentences2026See Dixon v. Hardey, 591 So. 2d 3 (Ala. 1991); Knop v. McCain, 561 So. 2d 229 (Ala. 1989); Ex parte Rutledge, 523 So. 2d 1118 (Ala. 1988); Ex parte Beam, 512 So. 2d 723 (Ala. 1987); Uptain v. State, 534 So. 2d 686, 688 (Ala. Crim. 2015See Dixon v. Hardey, 591 So.2d 3 (Ala.1991); Knop v. McCain, 561 So.2d 229 (Ala.1989); Ex parte Rutledge, 523 So.2d 1118 (Ala. 1988); Ex parte Beam, 512 So.2d 723 (Ala.1987); Uptain v. State, 534 So.2d 686, 688 (Ala.Crim.App.1988) (quoting Swain and citing Beam and Rutledge); Mason v. State, 536 So.2d 127, 129 (Ala.Crim.App.1988) (quoting Uptain). “... [T]his Court has returned to the ‘harmless-error’ analysis articulated in the Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81 , 108 S.Ct. 2273 , 101 L.Ed.2d 80 (1988), and [United States v.] Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304 , 120 S.Ct. 774 , 145 L.Ed.2d 792 (2000), | 13 | 2002–2026 |
Ex Parte Rutledge
red
2 sentences2026See Dixon v. Hardey, 591 So. 2d 3 (Ala. 1991); Knop v. McCain, 561 So. 2d 229 (Ala. 1989); Ex parte Rutledge, 523 So. 2d 1118 (Ala. 1988); Ex parte Beam, 512 So. 2d 723 (Ala. 1987); Uptain v. State, 534 So. 2d 686, 688 (Ala. Crim. 2015See Dixon v. Hardey, 591 So.2d 3 (Ala.1991); Knop v. McCain, 561 So.2d 229 (Ala.1989); Ex parte Rutledge, 523 So.2d 1118 (Ala. 1988); Ex parte Beam, 512 So.2d 723 (Ala.1987); Uptain v. State, 534 So.2d 686, 688 (Ala.Crim.App.1988) (quoting Swain and citing Beam and Rutledge); Mason v. State, 536 So.2d 127, 129 (Ala.Crim.App.1988) (quoting Uptain). “... [T]his Court has returned to the ‘harmless-error’ analysis articulated in the Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81 , 108 S.Ct. 2273 , 101 L.Ed.2d 80 (1988), and [United States v.] Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304 , 120 S.Ct. 774 , 145 L.Ed.2d 792 (2000), | 13 | 2002–2026 |
United States v. Martinez-Salazar
green
2 sentences2015See Dixon v. Hardey, 591 So.2d 3 (Ala.1991); Knop v. McCain, 561 So.2d 229 (Ala.1989); Ex parte Rutledge, 523 So.2d 1118 (Ala. 1988); Ex parte Beam, 512 So.2d 723 (Ala.1987); Uptain v. State, 534 So.2d 686, 688 (Ala.Crim.App.1988) (quoting Swain and citing Beam and Rutledge); Mason v. State, 536 So.2d 127, 129 (Ala.Crim.App.1988) (quoting Uptain). “... [T]his Court has returned to the ‘harmless-error’ analysis articulated in the Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81 , 108 S.Ct. 2273 , 101 L.Ed.2d 80 (1988), and [United States v.] Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304 , 120 S.Ct. 774 , 145 L.Ed.2d 792 (2000), 2015See Dixon v. Hardey, 591 So.2d 3 (Ala.1991); Knop v. McCain, 561 So.2d 229 (Ala.1989); Ex parte Rutledge, 523 So.2d 1118 (Ala. 1988); Ex parte Beam, 512 So.2d 723 (Ala.1987); Uptain v. State, 534 So.2d 686, 688 (Ala.Crim.App.1988) (quoting Swain and citing Beam and Rutledge); Mason v. State, 536 So.2d 127, 129 (Ala.Crim.App.1988) (quoting Uptain). “... [T]his Court has returned to the ‘harmless-error’ analysis articulated in the Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81 , 108 S.Ct. 2273 , 101 L.Ed.2d 80 (1988), and [United States v.] Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304 , 120 S.Ct. 774 , 145 L.Ed.2d 792 (2000), | 12 | 2002–2015 |
Ross v. Oklahoma
green
2 sentences2015See Dixon v. Hardey, 591 So.2d 3 (Ala.1991); Knop v. McCain, 561 So.2d 229 (Ala.1989); Ex parte Rutledge, 523 So.2d 1118 (Ala. 1988); Ex parte Beam, 512 So.2d 723 (Ala.1987); Uptain v. State, 534 So.2d 686, 688 (Ala.Crim.App.1988) (quoting Swain and citing Beam and Rutledge); Mason v. State, 536 So.2d 127, 129 (Ala.Crim.App.1988) (quoting Uptain). “... [T]his Court has returned to the ‘harmless-error’ analysis articulated in the Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81 , 108 S.Ct. 2273 , 101 L.Ed.2d 80 (1988), and [United States v.] Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304 , 120 S.Ct. 774 , 145 L.Ed.2d 792 (2000), 2015See Dixon v. Hardey, 591 So.2d 3 (Ala.1991); Knop v. McCain, 561 So.2d 229 (Ala.1989); Ex parte Rutledge, 523 So.2d 1118 (Ala. 1988); Ex parte Beam, 512 So.2d 723 (Ala.1987); Uptain v. State, 534 So.2d 686, 688 (Ala.Crim.App.1988) (quoting Swain and citing Beam and Rutledge); Mason v. State, 536 So.2d 127, 129 (Ala.Crim.App.1988) (quoting Uptain). “... [T]his Court has returned to the ‘harmless-error’ analysis articulated in the Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81 , 108 S.Ct. 2273 , 101 L.Ed.2d 80 (1988), and [United States v.] Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304 , 120 S.Ct. 774 , 145 L.Ed.2d 792 (2000), | 12 | 2002–2015 |
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.