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.
11 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1991–1995 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 JRgreen2 sentences1994"In order to transfer a juvenile, § 12-15-34 requires, first, that there be probable cause to believe that the child committed the offense alleged (a felony), and, second, at the dispositional phase of the hearing, that it is in the best interest of the child or the public to grant the motion to transfer." Ex parte J.R., 582 So.2d 444, 446-47 (Ala.) (Kennedy, J., dissenting from the quashing of a writ of certiorari), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 837 , 112 S.Ct. 122 , 116 L.Ed.2d 90 (1991). 1994“In order to transfer a juvenile, § 12-15-34 requires, first, that there be probable cause to believe that the child committed the offense alleged (a felony), and, second, at the dispositional phase of the hearing, that it is in the best interest of the child or the public to grant the motion to transfer.” Ex parte J.R., 582 So.2d 444, 446-47 (Ala.) (Kennedy, J., dissenting from the quashing of a writ of certiorari), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 837 , 112 S.Ct. 122 , 116 L.Ed.2d 90 (1991). | 4 | 5 |
DDP v. Stategreen2 sentences1995The standard has been explained as that evidence which convinces the trier of fact that a proposition is ‘highly probable,’ as distinguished from ‘more probable than not.’ ” D.D.P. v. State, 595 So.2d 528, 538 (Ala.CrApp.1991). 1992This court in O.M. v. State, 595 So.2d 514 (Ala.Crim.App. 1991), writ quashed, 595 So.2d 528 (Ala. 1992) adopted the "clear and convincing" standard of proof required for the dispositional phase of the hearing as set out in Justice Kennedy's dissent in Ex parte J.R., 582 So.2d 444 . | 3 | 4 |
ADT v. Stategreen2 sentences1994See also A.D.T. v. State, 630 So.2d 165, 166 (Ala.Cr. 1994See also A.D.T. v. State, 630 So.2d 165, 166 (Ala.Cr.App.1993). “[A] transfer hearing is not a hearing to adjudicate the guilt or innocence of the child accused of a crime but is, instead, a probable cause hearing to determine whether the child should be transferred out of the juvenile court for criminal prosecution as an adult.” Brown v. State, 353 So.2d 1384, 1387-88 (Ala.1977). | 2 | 2 |
Brown v. Stategreen2 sentences1994See also A.D.T. v. State, 630 So.2d 165, 166 (Ala.Cr.App.1993). “[A] transfer hearing is not a hearing to adjudicate the guilt or innocence of the child accused of a crime but is, instead, a probable cause hearing to determine whether the child should be transferred out of the juvenile court for criminal prosecution as an adult.” Brown v. State, 353 So.2d 1384, 1387-88 (Ala.1977). 1992Winstead v. State, Ala., 371 So.2d 418 (1979); Brown v. State, Ala., 353 So.2d 1384 (1978). | 1 | 3 |
OM v. Stategreen2 sentences1993In reviewing the dispositional phase of a juvenile court’s transfer order, this Court must determine whether the order to transfer is supported by “clear and convincing evidence.” See id. at 449; A W.M. v. State, 627 So.2d 1148, 1152 (Ala.Cr.App.1993); D.D.P. v. State, 595 So.2d 528, 536 (Ala.Cr.App.1991); O.M. v. State, 595 So.2d 514, 526 (Ala.Cr.App.1991), cert. quashed, 595 So.2d 528 (Ala.1992). 1992This court in O.M. v. State, 595 So.2d 514 (Ala.Crim.App. 1991), writ quashed, 595 So.2d 528 (Ala. 1992) adopted the "clear and convincing" standard of proof required for the dispositional phase of the hearing as set out in Justice Kennedy's dissent in Ex parte J.R., 582 So.2d 444 . | 1 | 3 |
AWM v. Stategreen2 sentences1993In reviewing the dispositional phase of a juvenile court’s transfer order, this Court must determine whether the order to transfer is supported by “clear and convincing evidence.” See id. at 449; A W.M. v. State, 627 So.2d 1148, 1152 (Ala.Cr.App.1993); D.D.P. v. State, 595 So.2d 528, 536 (Ala.Cr.App.1991); O.M. v. State, 595 So.2d 514, 526 (Ala.Cr.App.1991), cert. quashed, 595 So.2d 528 (Ala.1992). 1993In reviewing the dispositional phase of a juvenile court's transfer order, this Court must determine whether the order to transfer is supported by "clear and convincing evidence." See id. at 449; A.W.M. v. State, 627 So.2d 1148 , 1152 (Ala.Cr.App.1993); D.D.P. v. State, 595 So.2d 528, 536 (Ala.Cr.App.1991); O.M. v. State, 595 So.2d 514 , 526 (Ala.Cr. | 1 | 2 |
WTK v. Stategreen1 sentence1992See also W.T.K v. State, 598 So.2d 33 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 173 , 121 L.Ed.2d 120 (Ala.1992); T.J. v. State, 611 So.2d 1116 (Ala.Crim.App.1992). | 1 | 1 |
Desmond v. Merit Systems Protection Boardgreen1 sentence1992See also W.T.K v. State, 598 So.2d 33 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 173 , 121 L.Ed.2d 120 (Ala.1992); T.J. v. State, 611 So.2d 1116 (Ala.Crim.App.1992). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Huguenin v. Adams
green
2 sentences1994"In order to transfer a juvenile, § 12-15-34 requires, first, that there be probable cause to believe that the child committed the offense alleged (a felony), and, second, at the dispositional phase of the hearing, that it is in the best interest of the child or the public to grant the motion to transfer." Ex parte J.R., 582 So.2d 444, 446-47 (Ala.) (Kennedy, J., dissenting from the quashing of a writ of certiorari), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 837 , 112 S.Ct. 122 , 116 L.Ed.2d 90 (1991). 1994“In order to transfer a juvenile, § 12-15-34 requires, first, that there be probable cause to believe that the child committed the offense alleged (a felony), and, second, at the dispositional phase of the hearing, that it is in the best interest of the child or the public to grant the motion to transfer.” Ex parte J.R., 582 So.2d 444, 446-47 (Ala.) (Kennedy, J., dissenting from the quashing of a writ of certiorari), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 837 , 112 S.Ct. 122 , 116 L.Ed.2d 90 (1991). | 4 | 1993–1994 |
Slaton v. State
green
2 sentences1994(Emphasis added.) See also Slaton v. State, 555 So.2d 814 (Ala.Cr.App.1989). [[Image here]] “The appellant also questions the court’s decision, in the dispositional phase of the hearing, to transfer him to circuit court. 1994(Emphasis added.) See also Slaton v. State, 555 So.2d 814 (Ala.Cr.App.1989). [[Image here]] “The appellant also questions the court’s decision, in the dispositional phase of the hearing, to transfer him to circuit court. | 2 | 1994–1994 |
Martin v. United States
green
2 sentences1994"In order to transfer a juvenile, § 12-15-34 requires, first, that there be probable cause to believe that the child committed the offense alleged (a felony), and, second, at the dispositional phase of the hearing, that it is in the best interest of the child or the public to grant the motion to transfer." Ex parte J.R., 582 So.2d 444, 446-47 (Ala.) (Kennedy, J., dissenting from the quashing of a writ of certiorari), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 837 , 112 S.Ct. 122 , 116 L.Ed.2d 90 (1991). 1994“In order to transfer a juvenile, § 12-15-34 requires, first, that there be probable cause to believe that the child committed the offense alleged (a felony), and, second, at the dispositional phase of the hearing, that it is in the best interest of the child or the public to grant the motion to transfer.” Ex parte J.R., 582 So.2d 444, 446-47 (Ala.) (Kennedy, J., dissenting from the quashing of a writ of certiorari), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 837 , 112 S.Ct. 122 , 116 L.Ed.2d 90 (1991). | 2 | 1994–1994 |
Winstead v. State
green
2 sentences1992Winstead v. State, Ala., 371 So.2d 418 (1979); Brown v. State, Ala., 353 So.2d 1384 (1978). 1992Winstead v. State, Ala., 371 So.2d 418 (1979); Brown v. State, Ala., 353 So.2d 1384 (1978). | 2 | 1992–1992 |
Bragg v. State
green
2 sentences1991In Bragg v. State, 416 So.2d 715 (Ala. 1982), this Court reviewed the propriety of both the juvenile court's finding of probable cause and its ruling in the dispositional phase of the hearing that the juvenile should be transferred. 1991In Bragg v. State, 416 So.2d 715 (Ala.1982), this Court reviewed the propriety of both the juvenile court’s finding of probable cause and its ruling in the dispositional phase of the hearing that the juvenile should be transferred. | 2 | 1991–1991 |
TJ v. State
green
1 sentence1992See also W.T.K v. State, 598 So.2d 33 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 173 , 121 L.Ed.2d 120 (Ala.1992); T.J. v. State, 611 So.2d 1116 (Ala.Crim.App.1992). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.