fundamental rule in Alabama

2018In Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama, Inc. v. Nielsen , 714 So.2d 293 , 296 (Ala. 1998), this Court discussed the principles of statutory construction: " '[When a court] is called upon to construe a statute, the fundamental rule is that the court has a duty to ascertain and effectuate legislative intent expressed in the statute, which may be gleaned from the language used, the reason and necessity for the act, and the purposes sought to be obtained.' " (Quoting Ex parte Holladay , 466 So.2d 956 , 960 (Ala. 1985).) In IMED Corp. v. Systems Engineering Associates Corp. , 602 So.2d 344 , 346 (A

2018In Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama, Inc. v. Nielsen , 714 So.2d 293 , 296 (Ala. 1998), this Court discussed the principles of statutory construction: " '[When a court] is called upon to construe a statute, the fundamental rule is that the court has a duty to ascertain and effectuate legislative intent expressed in the statute, which may be gleaned from the language used, the reason and necessity for the act, and the purposes sought to be obtained.' " (Quoting Ex parte Holladay , 466 So.2d 956 , 960 (Ala. 1985).) In IMED Corp. v. Systems Engineering Associates Corp. , 602 So.2d 344 , 346 (A

2018In Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama, Inc. v. Nielsen , 714 So.2d 293 , 296 (Ala. 1998), this Court discussed the principles of statutory construction: " '[When a court] is called upon to construe a statute, the fundamental rule is that the court has a duty to ascertain and effectuate legislative intent expressed in the statute, which may be gleaned from the language used, the reason and necessity for the act, and the purposes sought to be obtained.' " (Quoting Ex parte Holladay , 466 So.2d 956 , 960 (Ala. 1985).) In IMED Corp. v. Systems Engineering Associates Corp. , 602 So.2d 344 , 346 (A

2018In Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama, Inc. v. Nielsen , 714 So.2d 293 , 296 (Ala. 1998), this Court discussed the principles of statutory construction: " '[When a court] is called upon to construe a statute, the fundamental rule is that the court has a duty to ascertain and effectuate legislative intent expressed in the statute, which may be gleaned from the language used, the reason and necessity for the act, and the purposes sought to be obtained.' " (Quoting Ex parte Holladay , 466 So.2d 956 , 960 (Ala. 1985).) In IMED Corp. v. Systems Engineering Associates Corp. , 602 So.2d 344 , 346 (A

2015Ctr. v. Hodgen, 884 So.2d 801, 814 (Ala.2003)).

2007"The fundamental principle of statutory construction is that words in a statute must be given their plain meaning." Mobile Infirmary Med Ctr. v. Hodgen , 884 So.2d 801 , 814 (Ala. 2003).

2016In John Deere Co. v. Gamble, 523 So.2d 95, 99-100 (Ala.1988), this Court, quoting Clark v. Houston County Comm’n, 507 So.2d 902, 903-04 (Ala.1987), set out the following general rules of statutory construction, which also apply to the construction of municipal ordinances: “ ‘ “The fundamental rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the [city council] in enacting the [ordinance].

2015In John Deere Co. v. Gamble, 523 So.2d 95, 99-100 (Ala.1988), [our supreme court], quoting Clark v. Houston County Comm’n, 507 So.2d 902, 903-04 (Ala.1987), set out the following general rules of statutory construction, which also apply to the construction of municipal ordinances: “ ‘ “ ‘The fundamental rule of statutory construction is-to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the [city council] in enacting the [ordinance].

2014This Court noted: “This Court is cognizant of the fact that the court’s holding in Stinson [v. State, 28 Ala.App. 559 , 190 So. 303 (1939),] seems to [imply] that the precursor to § 13A-11-52 [§ 163] was repealed by the enactment of the Uniform Firearms Act; however, the legislative history of the current § 13A-11-52 shows that the Legislature re-codified that section on two separate occasions following this Court’s holding in Stinson , in 1940 and 1975. ‘It is a fundamental principle of statutory construction that in enacting [a] statute the legislature had full knowledge and information as t

2011Attorney General of Alabama, 472 So.2d 970, 973 (Ala.1985). ‘It is a fundamental principle of statutory construction that in enacting the statute the legislature had full knowledge and information as to prior and existing law *23 and legislation on the subject of the statute.’ Miller v. State, 349 So.2d 129, 131 (Ala.Cr.App.1977). ‘[I]n cases of conflicting statutes on the same subject, the latest expression of the legislature is the law.

2016In John Deere Co. v. Gamble, 523 So.2d 95, 99-100 (Ala.1988), this Court, quoting Clark v. Houston County Comm’n, 507 So.2d 902, 903-04 (Ala.1987), set out the following general rules of statutory construction, which also apply to the construction of municipal ordinances: “ ‘ “The fundamental rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the [city council] in enacting the [ordinance].

2015In John Deere Co. v. Gamble, 523 So.2d 95, 99-100 (Ala.1988), [our supreme court], quoting Clark v. Houston County Comm’n, 507 So.2d 902, 903-04 (Ala.1987), set out the following general rules of statutory construction, which also apply to the construction of municipal ordinances: “ ‘ “ ‘The fundamental rule of statutory construction is-to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the [city council] in enacting the [ordinance].

2024See, e.g., League of Women Voters v. Renfro, 292 Ala. 128, 131 , 290 So. 2d 167, 169 (1974) ("Statutes are in pari materia where they deal with the same subject. … Where statutes are in pari materia they should be construed together to ascertain the meaning and intent of each."); Ex parte Johnson, 474 So. 2d 715, 717 (Ala. 1985) ("It is a fundamental principle of statutory construction that statutes covering the same or similar subject matter should be construed in pari materia."); United States v. Brune, 767 F.3d 1009, 1022 (10th Cir. 2014) (observing that "no statute is an island unto itself

2018To the contrary, this Court has indicated that the subject matter of the statutes being analyzed need only be 'related,' 'similar,' or the 'same general[ly].' See James [v. McKinney] , 729 So.2d [264] at 267 [ (Ala. 1998) ] ('In determining legislative intent, a court should examine related statutes.'); Ex parte Johnson , 474 So.2d 715 , 717 (Ala. 1985) ('It is a fundamental principle of statutory construction that statutes covering the same or similar subject matter should be construed in pari materia .'); and *822 Willis v. Kincaid , 983 So.2d 1100 , 1103 (Ala. 2007) (" '[S]tatutes must be c

2011Among other things, the Smiths cite Humane Society of Marshall County v. Adams, 439 So.2d 150, 152 (Ala.1983), for the proposition that “the fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” In Adams , this Court observed: “ ‘The doctrine of the authorities is that whenever it is sought to deprive a person of his property, or to create a charge against it, preliminary to, or which may be made the basis of, taking it, the owner must have notice of the proceeding, and be afforded an opportunity to be heard as to the correctnes

2001See also Humane Society of Marshall County v. Adams , 439 So.2d 150 , 152 (Ala. 1983) (`The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner').

2025"Absent a clearly expressed legislative intent to the contrary, the language of the statute is conclusive," id., and "the court must give effect to the clear meaning of that language." Beavers v. County of Walker, 645 So. 2d 1365, 1376-77 (Ala. 1994). 6 CR-2024-0313 " 'This fundamental rule of statutory construction applies to penal statutes.

2014Corp., 602 So.2d 344, 346 (Ala.1992). ' “However, when possible, the intent of the legislature should be gathered from the language of the statute itself.”’ Perry v. City of Birmingham, 906 So.2d 174, 176 (Ala.2005) (quoting Beavers v. Walker County, 645 So.2d 1365, 1376 (Ala.1994)); Ex parte Lamar Advertising Co., 849 So.2d 928, 930 (Ala.2002).

2017Levett v. State , 593 So.2d 130 , 135 (Ala. Crim.

2017Levett v. State , 593 So.2d 130 , 135 (Ala. Crim.

2016Furthermore, "[t]his Court cannot consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal; rather, our review is restricted to the evidence and arguments considered by the trial court." Andrews v. Merritt Oil Co. , 612 So. 2d 409 , 410 (Ala. 1992). " 'It is a fundamental rule of appellate procedure that, regardless of [the] merits of [the] appellant's contentions, appellate courts will not review questions not decided by the trial court.' " Etherton v. City of Homewood , 700 So. 2d 1374 , 1377-78 (Ala. 1997) (quoting Bevill v. Owen , 364 So. 2d 1201 , 1203 (Ala. 1979) ).

2015“It is a fundamental rule of appellate procedure that, regardless of merits of appellant’s contentions, appellate courts will not review questions not decided by the trial court.” Bevill v. Owen, 364 So.2d 1201, 1203 (Ala.1979).

2011Ctr. v. Hodgen, 884 So.2d 801, 814 (Ala.2003). ‘When a court construes a statute, “[wjords used in [the] statute must be given their natural, plain, ordinary, and commonly understood meaning, and where plain language is used a court is bound to interpret that language to mean exactly what it says.” ’ Ex parte Berryhill, 801 So.2d 7, 10 (Ala.2001) (quoting IMED Corp. v. Systems Eng’g Assocs.

2010Ctr. v. Hodgen, 884 So.2d 801, 814 (Ala.2003). ‘When a court construes a statute, “[w]ords used in [the] statute must be given their natural, plain, ordinary, and commonly understood meaning, and where plain language is used a court is bound to interpret that language to mean exactly what it says.” ’ Ex parte Berryhill, 801 So.2d 7, 10 (Ala.2001) (quoting IMED Corp. v. Systems Eng’g Assocs.

2023When the language is clear, there is no room for judicial construction….' " ' "Water Works & Sewer Bd. of Selma v. Randolph, 833 So. 2d 604, 607 (Ala. 2002)." ' "[Archer v. Estate of Archer, 45 So. 3d 1259, 1263 (Ala. 2010)] ([q]uoting Ex parte Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 45 So. 3d 764, 767 (Ala. 2009)[).] Similarly, in Lambert v. Wilcox County Commission, 623 So. 2d 727, 729 (Ala. 1993), the Court stated: " ' "The fundamental rule of statutory construction is that this Court is to ascertain and effectuate the legislative intent as expressed in the statute….

2016When the language is clear, there is no room for judicial construction.... ’ “ ‘ “Water Works & Sewer Bd. of Selma v. Randolph, 833 So.2d 604, 607 (Ala.2002).” ’ “(Quoting Ex parte Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 45 So.3d 764, 767 (Ala.2009).) Similarly, in Lambert v. Wilcox County Commission, 623 So.2d 727, 729 (Ala. 1993), the Court stated: “ ‘ “The fundamental rule of statutory construction is that this Court is to ascertain and effectuate the legislative intent as expressed in the statute....

2014Corp., 602 So.2d 344, 346 (Ala.1992). ' “However, when possible, the intent of the legislature should be gathered from the language of the statute itself.”’ Perry v. City of Birmingham, 906 So.2d 174, 176 (Ala.2005) (quoting Beavers v. Walker County, 645 So.2d 1365, 1376 (Ala.1994)); Ex parte Lamar Advertising Co., 849 So.2d 928, 930 (Ala.2002).

2013Corp., 602 So.2d 844, 846 (Ala.1992). “ ‘However, when possible, the intent of the legislature should be gathered from the language of the statute itself.’ ” Perry v. City of Birmingham, 906 So.2d 174, 176 (Ala.2005) (quoting Beavers v. Walker County, 645 So.2d 1365, 1376 (Ala.1994)); Ex parte Lamar Advertising Co., 849 So.2d 928, 930 (Ala.2002).

2016Furthermore, "[t]his Court cannot consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal; rather, our review is restricted to the evidence and arguments considered by the trial court." Andrews v. Merritt Oil Co. , 612 So. 2d 409 , 410 (Ala. 1992). " 'It is a fundamental rule of appellate procedure that, regardless of [the] merits of [the] appellant's contentions, appellate courts will not review questions not decided by the trial court.' " Etherton v. City of Homewood , 700 So. 2d 1374 , 1377-78 (Ala. 1997) (quoting Bevill v. Owen , 364 So. 2d 1201 , 1203 (Ala. 1979) ).

2012See Andrews v. Merritt Oil Co., 612 So.2d 409, 410 (Ala.1992) (“This Court cannot consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal; rather, our review is restricted to the evidence and arguments considered by the trial court.”); and Etherton v. City of Homewood, 700 So.2d 1374, 1377-78 (Ala.1997) (“Tt is a fundamental rule of appellate procedure that, regardless of [the] merits of [the] appellant’s contentions, appellate courts will not review questions not decided by the trial court.’ ” (quoting Bevill v. Owen, 364 So.2d 1201, 1203 (Ala.1979))).

2023When the language is clear, there is no room for judicial construction….' " ' "Water Works & Sewer Bd. of Selma v. Randolph, 833 So. 2d 604, 607 (Ala. 2002)." ' "[Archer v. Estate of Archer, 45 So. 3d 1259, 1263 (Ala. 2010)] ([q]uoting Ex parte Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 45 So. 3d 764, 767 (Ala. 2009)[).] Similarly, in Lambert v. Wilcox County Commission, 623 So. 2d 727, 729 (Ala. 1993), the Court stated: " ' "The fundamental rule of statutory construction is that this Court is to ascertain and effectuate the legislative intent as expressed in the statute….

2016When the language is clear, there is no room for judicial construction.... ’ “ ‘ “Water Works & Sewer Bd. of Selma v. Randolph, 833 So.2d 604, 607 (Ala.2002).” ’ “(Quoting Ex parte Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 45 So.3d 764, 767 (Ala.2009).) Similarly, in Lambert v. Wilcox County Commission, 623 So.2d 727, 729 (Ala. 1993), the Court stated: “ ‘ “The fundamental rule of statutory construction is that this Court is to ascertain and effectuate the legislative intent as expressed in the statute....

2018In Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama, Inc. v. Nielsen , 714 So.2d 293 , 296 (Ala. 1998), this Court discussed the principles of statutory construction: " '[When a court] is called upon to construe a statute, the fundamental rule is that the court has a duty to ascertain and effectuate legislative intent expressed in the statute, which may be gleaned from the language used, the reason and necessity for the act, and the purposes sought to be obtained.' " (Quoting Ex parte Holladay , 466 So.2d 956 , 960 (Ala. 1985).) In IMED Corp. v. Systems Engineering Associates Corp. , 602 So.2d 344 , 346 (A

2018In Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama, Inc. v. Nielsen , 714 So.2d 293 , 296 (Ala. 1998), this Court discussed the principles of statutory construction: " '[When a court] is called upon to construe a statute, the fundamental rule is that the court has a duty to ascertain and effectuate legislative intent expressed in the statute, which may be gleaned from the language used, the reason and necessity for the act, and the purposes sought to be obtained.' " (Quoting Ex parte Holladay , 466 So.2d 956 , 960 (Ala. 1985).) In IMED Corp. v. Systems Engineering Associates Corp. , 602 So.2d 344 , 346 (A

2014“In Ex parte Berryhill, 410 So.2d 416, 418 (Ala.1982), we held: ‘The fundamental principle is that the decision' of a court must be based on evidence produced in open court lest the guarantee of due process be infringed.’ See Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 546 , 105 S.Ct. 1487 , 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985) (‘The essential requirements of due process ... are notice and an opportunity to respond.

2013See Ex parte R.D.N., 918 So.2d 100 (Ala.2005) (quoting Ex parte Berryhill, 410 So.2d 416, 418 (Ala.1982) (“‘The fundamental principle is that the decision of a court must be based on evidence produced in open court lest the guarantee of due process be infringed.’ ”), 918 So.2d at 104 , and Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 546 , 105 S.Ct. 1487 , 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985) (“ ‘The essential requirements of due process ... are notice and an opportunity to respond.

2012Speculation is woefully insufficient to satisfy a Rule 32 petitioner’s burden of proof. “[A] mistrial is a drastic remedy, to be used sparingly and only to prevent manifest injustice.” Peoples v. State, 951 So.2d 755, 763 (Ala.Crim.App.2006). “ ‘ “A motion for a mistrial implies a miscarriage of justice and is such a serious matter that it should be granted only where there is a fundamental error in the trial which would vitiate the result.” ’ ” Gamble v. State, 791 So.2d 409, 437-38 (Ala.Crim.App.2000) (quoting Jenkins v. State, 627 So.2d 1034, 1038 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), aff'd, 627 So.2d 1054

1992“A motion for mistrial implies a miscarriage of justice and is such a serious matter that it should be granted only where there is a fundamental error in the trial which would vitiate the result.” Thompson v. State, 527 So.2d 777, 779 (Ala.Cr.App.1988) (citations omitted).

2004"A motion for mistrial implies a miscarriage of justice and is such a serious matter that it should be granted only when there is a fundamental error in trial which would vitiate the result." Montgomery v. State, 446 So.2d 697, 702 (Ala.Crim.App.1983).

2001Montgomery v. State, 446 So.2d 697, 702 (Ala.Cr.App.1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 916 , 105 S.Ct. 291 , 83 L.Ed.2d 227 (1984).'" Gamble v. State, 791 So.2d 409, 437-38 (Ala.Crim.App.2000).

2008When examining legislative statutes that may be subject to differing interpretation, the Alabama Supreme Court in Shelton v. Wright, 439 So.2d 55 (Ala.1983) stated: *608 “ ‘The fundamental rule of statutory construction is that a court is under a duty to ascertain and effectuate legislative intent as expressed in the statute, see e.g., Gundy v. Ozier, 409 So.2d 764, 765, 766 (Ala.1981), which may be gleaned from the language used, the reason and necessity for the act and the purpose sought to be obtained.

1995In Shelton v. Wright, 439 So.2d 55, 57 (Ala.1983), the Alabama Supreme Court stated: “The fundamental rule of statutory construction is that a court is under a duty to ascertain and effectuate legislative intent as expressed in the statute, see e.g., Gundy v. Ozier, 409 So.2d 764, 765, 766 (Ala.1981), which may be gleaned from the language used, the reason and necessity for the act and the purpose sought to be obtained.

2011However, a fundamental rule in construing a statute in order to effect the intent of the legislature is that the statute as a whole be examined, rather than “ ‘ “ ‘isolated phrases or clauses.’ ” ’ ” Fluker v. Wolff, 46 So.3d 942, 953 (Ala.2010) (quoting Bright v. Calhoun, 988 So.2d 492, 497 (Ala.2008), quoting in turn City of Bessemer v. McClain, 957 So.2d 1061, 1074 (Ala.2006), quoting in turn Darks Dairy, Inc. v. Alabama Dairy Comm’n, 367 So.2d 1378, 1380 (Ala.1979)).

1981The Supreme Court of Alabama has repeatedly held that ascertaining and giving effect to the legislative intent as expressed in a statute is the "underlying consideration," Employees' Retirement System of Alabama v. Head , Ala., 369 So.2d 1227 ; "the fundamental rule," Darks Dairy v. Alabama Dairy Commission , Ala., 367 So.2d 1378 ; "the paramount purpose," Boswell v. South Central Bell Tel.

2011Where a conflict exists between statutes, the last enactment must take precedence.’ [Baldwin County v.] Jenkins, 494 So.2d [584,] 588 [ (Ala.1986) ] (citations omitted).” Hatcher v. State, 547 So.2d 905, 906-07 (Ala.Crim.App.1989).

2007Where a conflict exists between statutes, the last enactment must take precedence." [ Baldwin County v.] Jenkins , 494 So.2d [584 ,] 588 [(Ala. 1986)] (citations omitted).' " Hatcher v. State , 547 So.2d 905 , 906-07 (Ala.Crim.App. 1989)." 820 So.2d at 164 -65 .