87 Alabama opinions name it 4 courts 1880–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Edgar v. Stategreen2 sentences2025P., without an affirmative statement by the trial judge giving the ruling a presumption of correctness and the defendant supports his new trial motion by evidence that was not presented at trial, and that evidence, if not controverted by the State, will entitle him to a new trial, the denial by operation of law should be reversed and the case remanded for the trial court to conduct a hearing on his motion for new trial and then enter an order either granting or denying the motion.' " 27 CR-2023-0170 (Jackson's brief, p. 48 (quoting Edgar v. State, 646 So. 2d 683, 687 (Ala. 1984)) (emphasis add 2024P., without an affirmative statement by the trial judge giving the ruling a presumption of correctness and the defendant supports his new trial motion by evidence that was not presented at trial, and that evidence, if not controverted by the State, will entitle him to a new trial, the denial by operation of law should be reversed and the case remanded for the trial court to conduct a hearing on his motion for new trial and then enter an order either granting or denying the motion." 646 So. 2d at 687 . | 7 | 15 |
McDade v. Stategreen2 sentences2009Addressing a similar situation, the Alabama Supreme Court held: "We hold that where, as here, a criminal defendant's motion for a new trial is denied under the provisions of Rule 24.4, Ala.R.Crim.P., without an affirmative statement by the trial judge giving the ruling a presumption of correctness and the defendant supports his new trial motion by evidence that was not presented at trial, and that evidence, if not controverted by the State, will entitle him to a new trial, the denial by operation of law should be reversed and the case remanded for the trial court to conduct a hearing on his mo 2009Addressing a similar situation, the Alabama Supreme Court held: “We hold that where, as here, a criminal defendant’s motion for a new trial is denied under the provisions of Rule 24.4, Ala.R.Crim.P., without an affirmative statement by the trial judge giving the ruling a presumption of correctness and the defendant supports his new trial motion by evidence that was not presented at trial, and that evidence, if not controverted by the State, will entitle him to a new trial, the denial by operation of law should be reversed and the case remanded for the trial court to conduct a hearing on his mo | 3 | 4 |
Benjamin v. Stategreen2 sentences2009Addressing a similar situation, the Alabama Supreme Court held: "We hold that where, as here, a criminal defendant's motion for a new trial is denied under the provisions of Rule 24.4, Ala.R.Crim.P., without an affirmative statement by the trial judge giving the ruling a presumption of correctness and the defendant supports his new trial motion by evidence that was not presented at trial, and that evidence, if not controverted by the State, will entitle him to a new trial, the denial by operation of law should be reversed and the case remanded for the trial court to conduct a hearing on his mo 2009Addressing a similar situation, the Alabama Supreme Court held: “We hold that where, as here, a criminal defendant’s motion for a new trial is denied under the provisions of Rule 24.4, Ala.R.Crim.P., without an affirmative statement by the trial judge giving the ruling a presumption of correctness and the defendant supports his new trial motion by evidence that was not presented at trial, and that evidence, if not controverted by the State, will entitle him to a new trial, the denial by operation of law should be reversed and the case remanded for the trial court to conduct a hearing on his mo | 3 | 3 |
Clark v. Stategreen2 sentences1999A trial court’s ruling on challenge for cause based on bias is entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly shown to be abuse of discretion.’ Clark v. State, 443 So.2d 1287, 1289 (Ala.Cr.App.1983). 1988The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether the pre-trial publicity surrounding the defendant's case made a fair trial impossible in the county in which he was tried and also considered the defendant's objections to the trial court's denial of his challenges for cause. 2 As noted by the Supreme Court of Alabama in Ex Parte Beam , 512 So.2d 723 (Ala. 1987) in reversing the trial court for failing to grant the defendant's challenge for cause, the Supreme Court of Alabama stated the following: "The State urges our affirmance on the authority of two propositions set for | 2 | 4 |
Ex Parte Nettlesgreen2 sentences1999See also Ex parte Nettles, 435 So.2d 151, 154 (Ala.1983), and cases cited therein.” Mahan v. State, 508 So.2d 1180, 1182 (Ala.Cr.App.1986). 1987See also Ex parte Nettles, 435 So.2d 151, 154 (Ala.1983), and cases cited therein. | 2 | 2 |
Watkins v. Stategreen2 sentences1997Where the evidence discloses two or more offenses growing out of distinct and separate transactions, a court should grant a timely motion to require the State to elect.’ “Watkins v. State, 36 Ala.App. 711 , 63 So.2d 293, 293-94 (1953). “ ‘The need for election arises where there is but one count charging a single offense, but the proof shows more than one instance of that offense. 1997Where the evidence discloses two or more offenses growing out of distinct and separate transactions, a court should grant a timely motion to require the State to elect.’ “Watkins v. State, 36 Ala.App. 711 , 63 So.2d 293, 293-94 (1953). “ ‘The need for election arises where there is but one count charging a single offense, but the proof shows more than one instance of that offense. | 2 | 2 |
Wright v. Childreegreen1 sentence2011See Wright v. Childree, 972 So.2d 771, 778 (Ala.2006) (“This Court accords the trial court’s ruling no presumption of correctness as to a question of law.”). | 1 | 1 |
Gatlin v. Joinergreen1 sentence2009See Gatlin v. Joiner, 4 So.3d 1139 (Ala.Civ.App.2008). | 1 | 1 |
Mahan v. Stategreen1 sentence1999See also Ex parte Nettles, 435 So.2d 151, 154 (Ala.1983), and cases cited therein.” Mahan v. State, 508 So.2d 1180, 1182 (Ala.Cr.App.1986). | 1 | 1 |
Hernandez v. New Yorkgreen2 sentences1993See Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352 , _, 111 S.Ct. 1859, 1866 , 114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991). 1993See Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352 , _, 111 S.Ct. 1859, 1866 , 114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991). | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1982The "automatic standing rule," as enunciated in Jones , and later clarified in Brown v. United States , 411 U.S. 223 , 93 S.Ct. 1565 , 36 L.Ed.2d 208 *Page 236 (1973), is that a defendant has standing to test the constitutionality of a search and seizure where his indictment charges "possession of the seized evidence at the time of the contested search and seizure," 411 U.S. at 229 , 93 S.Ct. at 1569 , without the necessity of showing an expectation of privacy in the premises searched. 1982The "automatic standing rule," as enunciated in Jones , and later clarified in Brown v. United States , 411 U.S. 223 , 93 S.Ct. 1565 , 36 L.Ed.2d 208 *Page 236 (1973), is that a defendant has standing to test the constitutionality of a search and seizure where his indictment charges "possession of the seized evidence at the time of the contested search and seizure," 411 U.S. at 229 , 93 S.Ct. at 1569 , without the necessity of showing an expectation of privacy in the premises searched. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Banks v. State
green
2 sentences2023"Additionally, this Court in Banks v. State, 845 So. 2d 9 (Ala. Crim. 2007“Additionally, this Court in Banks v. State, 845 So.2d 9 (Ala.Crim.App.2002), addressed a situation similar to the case at bar, having before it an affirmative response from the trial court denying a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, over which it no longer had jurisdiction because the motion had been denied by operation of law. | 3 | 2006–2023 |
Stephens v. State
green
2 sentences1970Stephens v. State, 252 Ala. 183 , 40 So.2d 90 . 1970Stephens v. State, 252 Ala. 183 , 40 So.2d 90 . | 3 | 1952–1970 |
Hill v. State
green
2 sentences2000In Hill v. State, 675 So.2d 484 (Ala.Cr. 2000In Hill v. State, 675 So.2d 484 (Ala.Cr. | 2 | 2000–2000 |
Hayes v. State
neutral
2 sentences1974This court expressly declined to follow them as to the law on motions for new trials in Adams v. Lanier, supra. In the case of Riley v. Srofe, 35 Ala.App. 222 , 45 So.2d 328 , the third case cited, this court, referring to it in Adams v. Lanier, supra, stated: “The Court of Appeals appears to have concluded that, after indulging all reasonable presumptions as to the correctness of the ruling granting a new trial, the ruling was error because the undisputed evidence plainly and palpably supported the verdict. * * * ” When the trial court grants a motion for a new trial without indicating the gr 1968The recitation of the undisputed evidence hereinabove makes this view evincingly apparent.” ( 35 Ala.App. at 225 , 45 So.2d at 330 ) The Court of Appeals appears to have concluded that, after indulging all reasonable presumptions as to the correctness of the ruling granting a new trial, the ruling was error because the undisputed evidence plainly and palpably supported the verdict. | 2 | 1968–1974 |
Riley v. Srofe
neutral
2 sentences1974This court expressly declined to follow them as to the law on motions for new trials in Adams v. Lanier, supra. In the case of Riley v. Srofe, 35 Ala.App. 222 , 45 So.2d 328 , the third case cited, this court, referring to it in Adams v. Lanier, supra, stated: “The Court of Appeals appears to have concluded that, after indulging all reasonable presumptions as to the correctness of the ruling granting a new trial, the ruling was error because the undisputed evidence plainly and palpably supported the verdict. * * * ” When the trial court grants a motion for a new trial without indicating the gr 1968The recitation of the undisputed evidence hereinabove makes this view evincingly apparent.” ( 35 Ala.App. at 225 , 45 So.2d at 330 ) The Court of Appeals appears to have concluded that, after indulging all reasonable presumptions as to the correctness of the ruling granting a new trial, the ruling was error because the undisputed evidence plainly and palpably supported the verdict. | 2 | 1968–1974 |
Pettry v. State
green
2 sentences1973Pettry v. State, 47 Ala.App. 237 , 252 So.2d 659 . 1973Pettry v. State, 47 Ala.App. 237 , 252 So.2d 659 . | 2 | 1973–1973 |
Tennessee Coal, Iron & R. R. v. Smith
green
2 sentences1916Co. v. Smith, 171 Ala. 251 [ 55 South. 170 ], qualify the ruling and doctrine of the long line of decisions noted above.” So, in Sloss-Sheffield S. & I. 1916Co. v. Smith, 171 Ala. 251 [ 55 South. 170 ], qualify the ruling and doctrine of the long line of decisions noted above.” So, in Sloss-Sheffield S. & I. | 2 | 1914–1916 |
Smith v. State
green
2 sentences1916In this ruling there was no error. — Smith's Case , 129 Ala. 89 , 29 So. 699 , 87 Am. 1909In this ruling there was no error. — Smith’s Case, 129 Ala. 89 , 29 South. 699 , 87 Am. | 2 | 1909–1916 |
Ex Parte Safeway Ins. Co. of Alabama, Inc.
green
1 sentence2017Co. of Alabama, Inc. , 990 So.2d 344 , 350 (Ala. 2008) ("[W]hen reviewing a trial court's ruling on motion to dismiss based on a facial challenge to the trial court's subject-matter jurisdiction, [an appellate court] must not afford the trial court's ruling a presumption of correctness and must accept the allegations in the complaint as true."). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Green
green
1 sentence2010In State v. Green, 992 So.2d 82 (Ala.Crim.App.2008), this Court explained: “It is well established that a police officer may make a brief investigatory stop of an individual based upon a ‘reasonable suspicion’ of criminal activity. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Newman v. Savas
green
1 sentence2008After recognizing that this Court, when reviewing a trial court's ruling on motion to dismiss based on a facial challenge to the trial court's subject-matter jurisdiction, must not afford the trial court's ruling a presumption of correctness and must accept the allegations in the complaint as true, see Newman v. Savas, 878 So.2d 1147 (Ala.2003), we considered the allegations in the Pontiuses' complaint and concluded that the complaint on its face did not establish that the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the bad-faith claim. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Tyler v. City of Enterprise
green
1 sentence2006Tyler v. City of Enterprise , 577 So.2d 876 (Ala. 1991). [Serio] is therefore at least entitled to pursue claims of wantonness and the Court's ruling is in error. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Smith v. State
green
1 sentence1995While the allegations in the motion for a new trial were not controverted by the State, the motion for a new trial was not supported by an affidavit. " 'Consequently, the assertions of counsel contained [in an unverified motion] "are bare allegations and cannot be considered as evidence or proof of the facts alleged." ' Arnold v. State , 601 So.2d 145 , 154 (Ala.Cr.App. 1992). ' "Assertions of counsel in an unverified motion . . . are bare allegations and cannot be considered as evidence or proof of the facts alleged." Smith v. State , 364 So.2d 1 , 14 (Ala.Cr.App. 1978). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Carnold v. State
green
1 sentence1995While the allegations in the motion for a new trial were not controverted by the State, the motion for a new trial was not supported by an affidavit. " 'Consequently, the assertions of counsel contained [in an unverified motion] "are bare allegations and cannot be considered as evidence or proof of the facts alleged." ' Arnold v. State , 601 So.2d 145 , 154 (Ala.Cr.App. 1992). ' "Assertions of counsel in an unverified motion . . . are bare allegations and cannot be considered as evidence or proof of the facts alleged." Smith v. State , 364 So.2d 1 , 14 (Ala.Cr.App. 1978). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Bell v. Hart
green
1 sentence1991Bell, supra; Byars, supra. Finally, Phillips contends that the trial court's ruling was error because, he contends, this Court has previously approved of testimony by nonphysician witnesses regarding causes of death. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Gannaway v. State
green
1 sentence1991While the general rule is that "[w]hen one party puts into evidence part of a conversation, document, or transaction, the opposing party is entitled to introduce the whole of it." Pyles v. State , 448 So.2d 416 , 420 (Ala.Crim.App. 1983). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Ex Parte Beam
green
1 sentence1988The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether the pre-trial publicity surrounding the defendant's case made a fair trial impossible in the county in which he was tried and also considered the defendant's objections to the trial court's denial of his challenges for cause. 2 As noted by the Supreme Court of Alabama in Ex Parte Beam , 512 So.2d 723 (Ala. 1987) in reversing the trial court for failing to grant the defendant's challenge for cause, the Supreme Court of Alabama stated the following: "The State urges our affirmance on the authority of two propositions set for | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Davis v. State
green
2 sentences1985Veniremen cannot be expected to reveal information not elicited by the litigants." 51 Ala. App. at 202 , 283 So.2d at 652 . 1985Veniremen cannot be expected to reveal information not elicited by the litigants." 51 Ala. App. at 202 , 283 So.2d at 652 . | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Jones v. United States
red
2 sentences1982Furthermore, whatever interest he had in the marihuana, which the jury by its verdict decided that he had, would not be sufficient to show that the Cher, or that which was searched or seized on the Cher other than the marihuana, was one of his `houses, papers, and [or] effects' as to which the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States affords security. . . ." Defendant asserts this ruling was error because, he contends, he was entitled to "automatic standing" under Jones v. United States , 362 U.S. 257 , 80 S.Ct. 725 , 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960). 1982Furthermore, whatever interest he had in the marihuana, which the jury by its verdict decided that he had, would not be sufficient to show that the Cher, or that which was searched or seized on the Cher other than the marihuana, was one of his `houses, papers, and [or] effects' as to which the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States affords security. . . ." Defendant asserts this ruling was error because, he contends, he was entitled to "automatic standing" under Jones v. United States , 362 U.S. 257 , 80 S.Ct. 725 , 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| Jones v. Strange green | 1 | 1974–1974 |
| Wall v. Walls neutral | 1 | 1974–1974 |
| Lee v. Moore green | 1 | 1974–1974 |
| Roviaro v. United States green | 1 | 1973–1973 |
| Eley v. Brunner-Lay Southern Corporation, Inc. green | 1 | 1973–1973 |
| Adkins v. State neutral | 1 | 1973–1973 |
| Gills v. State neutral | 1 | 1973–1973 |
| Gills v. State neutral | 1 | 1973–1973 |
| Sorrells v. State neutral | 1 | 1970–1970 |
| Bedsole v. State neutral | 1 | 1970–1970 |
| Pugh v. State green | 1 | 1970–1970 |
| Gulf Refining Co. v. Smith green | 1 | 1969–1969 |
| Landrum v. Swann green | 1 | 1969–1969 |
| Summerford v. Meyer & Co. green | 1 | 1969–1969 |
| Garner v. Gwinnett County green | 1 | 1969–1969 |
| Stephens v. Middlebrooks neutral | 1 | 1966–1966 |
| Corey v. Penney neutral | 1 | 1966–1966 |
| Jencks v. United States green | 1 | 1966–1966 |
| United States v. Ward Baking Co. green | 1 | 1966–1966 |
| Smith v. Pennsylvania green | 1 | 1966–1966 |
| Brady v. Maryland green | 1 | 1966–1966 |
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.