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 3 courts 1955–2005 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hames v. Sturdivantgreen2 sentences2005See also Hames v. Sturdivant , 181 Ga. 472 , 182 S.E. 601 , 602 (1935)("The weight of authority . . . is that when a person is in custody under an extradition warrant he is not entitled to bail."); Walden v. Mosley , 312 F.Supp. 855 , 860 (D.C.Miss.1970) ("In the relatively few reported cases in which a petitioner has been admitted to bail pending a habeas corpus hearing on extradition, it was almost always before the governor of the asylum state had issued his warrant of rendition where it appeared there might be a substantial delay before the petitioner would be extradited and have an opport 2005See also Hames v. Sturdivant, 181 Ga. 472 , 182 S.E. 601, 602 (1935)(“The weight of authority ... is that when a person is in custody under an extradition warrant he is not entitled to bail.”); Walden v. Mosley, 312 F.Supp. 855, 860 (D.C.Miss.1970) (“In the relatively few reported cases in which a petitioner has been admitted to bail pending a habeas corpus hearing on extradition, it was almost always before the governor of the asylum state had issued his warrant of rendition where it appeared there might be a substantial delay before the petitioner would be extradited and have an opportunity | 2 | 2 |
Hames v. Sturdivantgreen2 sentences2005See also Hames v. Sturdivant , 181 Ga. 472 , 182 S.E. 601 , 602 (1935)("The weight of authority . . . is that when a person is in custody under an extradition warrant he is not entitled to bail."); Walden v. Mosley , 312 F.Supp. 855 , 860 (D.C.Miss.1970) ("In the relatively few reported cases in which a petitioner has been admitted to bail pending a habeas corpus hearing on extradition, it was almost always before the governor of the asylum state had issued his warrant of rendition where it appeared there might be a substantial delay before the petitioner would be extradited and have an opport 2005See also Hames v. Sturdivant, 181 Ga. 472 , 182 S.E. 601, 602 (1935)(“The weight of authority ... is that when a person is in custody under an extradition warrant he is not entitled to bail.”); Walden v. Mosley, 312 F.Supp. 855, 860 (D.C.Miss.1970) (“In the relatively few reported cases in which a petitioner has been admitted to bail pending a habeas corpus hearing on extradition, it was almost always before the governor of the asylum state had issued his warrant of rendition where it appeared there might be a substantial delay before the petitioner would be extradited and have an opportunity | 2 | 2 |
Emig v. Haywardgreen2 sentences2005See T.C.A. 40-9-106 and 40-9-108 . 10 Once a fugitive is served with a rendition warrant of the governor of the asylum state, he is not entitled to bail and no constitutional abridgement is involved."); Emig v. Hayward , 703 P.2d 1043 , 1050 (Utah 1985) ("Different rules apply to the period following the issuance of the governor's warrant. 2005See T.C.A. 40-9-106 and 40-9-108. 10 Once a fugitive is served with a rendition warrant of the governor of the asylum state, he is not entitled to bail and no constitutional abridgement is involved.”); Emig v. Hayward, 703 P.2d 1043, 1050 (Utah 1985) (“Different rules apply to the period following the issuance of the governor’s warrant. | 2 | 2 |
Cadle v. Cauthrongreen2 sentences2005See Cadle v. Cauthron, 266 Ark. 419 , 584 S.W.2d 6 (1979). 2005See Cadle v. Cauthron, 266 Ark. 419 , 584 S.W.2d 6 (1979). | 2 | 2 |
Mandina v. Stategreen2 sentences2005See also Hames v. Sturdivant , 181 Ga. 472 , 182 S.E. 601 , 602 (1935)("The weight of authority . . . is that when a person is in custody under an extradition warrant he is not entitled to bail."); Walden v. Mosley , 312 F.Supp. 855 , 860 (D.C.Miss.1970) ("In the relatively few reported cases in which a petitioner has been admitted to bail pending a habeas corpus hearing on extradition, it was almost always before the governor of the asylum state had issued his warrant of rendition where it appeared there might be a substantial delay before the petitioner would be extradited and have an opport 2005See also Hames v. Sturdivant, 181 Ga. 472 , 182 S.E. 601, 602 (1935)(“The weight of authority ... is that when a person is in custody under an extradition warrant he is not entitled to bail.”); Walden v. Mosley, 312 F.Supp. 855, 860 (D.C.Miss.1970) (“In the relatively few reported cases in which a petitioner has been admitted to bail pending a habeas corpus hearing on extradition, it was almost always before the governor of the asylum state had issued his warrant of rendition where it appeared there might be a substantial delay before the petitioner would be extradited and have an opportunity | 1 | 2 |
Walden v. Mosleygreen2 sentences2005See also Hames v. Sturdivant , 181 Ga. 472 , 182 S.E. 601 , 602 (1935)("The weight of authority . . . is that when a person is in custody under an extradition warrant he is not entitled to bail."); Walden v. Mosley , 312 F.Supp. 855 , 860 (D.C.Miss.1970) ("In the relatively few reported cases in which a petitioner has been admitted to bail pending a habeas corpus hearing on extradition, it was almost always before the governor of the asylum state had issued his warrant of rendition where it appeared there might be a substantial delay before the petitioner would be extradited and have an opport 2005See also Hames v. Sturdivant, 181 Ga. 472 , 182 S.E. 601, 602 (1935)(“The weight of authority ... is that when a person is in custody under an extradition warrant he is not entitled to bail.”); Walden v. Mosley, 312 F.Supp. 855, 860 (D.C.Miss.1970) (“In the relatively few reported cases in which a petitioner has been admitted to bail pending a habeas corpus hearing on extradition, it was almost always before the governor of the asylum state had issued his warrant of rendition where it appeared there might be a substantial delay before the petitioner would be extradited and have an opportunity | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ex Parte Pruitt
green
1 sentence2001In our case of Ex parte Pruitt, 673 So.2d 836 (Ala.Crim.App.1996), the Alabama Supreme Court by an order of that Court directed us to remand a habeas corpus petition to the circuit court for that court to state its reasons for setting bail at $200,000, in a capital-murder case. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Arthur Lee Norris v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida
green
1 sentence1985Although a petitioner does not have a constitutional right to the appointment of counsel at a habeas corpus hearing, Norris v. Wainwright , 588 F.2d 130 , 133-34 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 846 , 100 S.Ct. 93 , 62 L.Ed.2d 60 (1979), "[w]here petitioner can afford it, he is entitled to retain private counsel for the prosecution of his application." 39A C.J.S. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Marlin v. United States
green
1 sentence1985Although a petitioner does not have a constitutional right to the appointment of counsel at a habeas corpus hearing, Norris v. Wainwright , 588 F.2d 130 , 133-34 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 846 , 100 S.Ct. 93 , 62 L.Ed.2d 60 (1979), "[w]here petitioner can afford it, he is entitled to retain private counsel for the prosecution of his application." 39A C.J.S. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
McMahon v. Harris
green
1 sentence1985Although a petitioner does not have a constitutional right to the appointment of counsel at a habeas corpus hearing, Norris v. Wainwright , 588 F.2d 130 , 133-34 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 846 , 100 S.Ct. 93 , 62 L.Ed.2d 60 (1979), "[w]here petitioner can afford it, he is entitled to retain private counsel for the prosecution of his application." 39A C.J.S. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Smith v. Leeke
green
1 sentence1985Although a petitioner does not have a constitutional right to the appointment of counsel at a habeas corpus hearing, Norris v. Wainwright , 588 F.2d 130 , 133-34 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 846 , 100 S.Ct. 93 , 62 L.Ed.2d 60 (1979), "[w]here petitioner can afford it, he is entitled to retain private counsel for the prosecution of his application." 39A C.J.S. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Shirley v. State
neutral
1 sentence1982Shirley v. State, Ala. 363 So.2d 104 ; Ala.Cr.App. 363 So.2d 103 ; Ala.Cr.App. 363 So.2d 107 . | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Wills v. State
neutral
2 sentences1982The Supreme Court in Parker , supra, referred to the case Wills v. State , 74 Ala. 21 (1883) and cited the following rule from Wills : "A witness is not bound to answer to a matter reduced to writing by himself or another, and subscribed by him, until the writing has been produced and read or shown to him." 74 Ala., at 24 . 1982The Supreme Court in Parker , supra, referred to the case Wills v. State , 74 Ala. 21 (1883) and cited the following rule from Wills : "A witness is not bound to answer to a matter reduced to writing by himself or another, and subscribed by him, until the writing has been produced and read or shown to him." 74 Ala., at 24 . | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Parker v. State
green
1 sentence1982Appellant did not ask Ms. Moore whether or not she remembered testifying at the habeas corpus proceeding; rather his question was: "Ms. Moore, when you testified at the habeas corpus hearing, do you remember being asked the question —." (Emphasis added.) In Parker , supra, the Supreme Court stated that, where a party desires to cross-examine a witness concerning a prior statement written or signed by the witness, or prior testimony by the witness, if the statement is to be later introduced into evidence to impeach the witness, the statement must first be shown to the witness in order to allow | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Michigan v. Doran
green
2 sentences1982The issue is stated by petitioner as follows: “Does the accused in an extradition proceeding have the right to examine (the) physical description given by the victims from the demanding state in order to ascertain whether the identity of the alleged perpetrator of the offense in the requesting state corresponds or matches the physical identity or description of the accused and petitioner in a habeas corpus hearing resisting the extradition?” Under Michigan v. Doran, 439 U.S. 282 , 99 S.Ct. 530 , 58 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978), this factual issue is beyond the scope of the judicial inquiry which may be 1982The issue is stated by petitioner as follows: “Does the accused in an extradition proceeding have the right to examine (the) physical description given by the victims from the demanding state in order to ascertain whether the identity of the alleged perpetrator of the offense in the requesting state corresponds or matches the physical identity or description of the accused and petitioner in a habeas corpus hearing resisting the extradition?” Under Michigan v. Doran, 439 U.S. 282 , 99 S.Ct. 530 , 58 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978), this factual issue is beyond the scope of the judicial inquiry which may be | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Ex parte Alabama State Tenure Commission
neutral
1 sentence1982Shirley v. State, Ala. 363 So.2d 104 ; Ala.Cr.App. 363 So.2d 103 ; Ala.Cr.App. 363 So.2d 107 . | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Shirley v. State
neutral
1 sentence1982Shirley v. State, Ala. 363 So.2d 104 ; Ala.Cr.App. 363 So.2d 103 ; Ala.Cr.App. 363 So.2d 107 . | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Meadows v. State
neutral
2 sentences1980Aldio v. State, 44 Ala.App. 303 , 208 So.2d 212 (1967); Martin v. State, 50 Ala.App. 1 , 276 So.2d 149 (1973); Watson v. State, 30 Ala.App. 184 , 2 So.2d 470 (1941); and Meadows v. State, 38 Ala.App. 319 , 82 So.2d 811 (1955). 1980Aldio v. State, 44 Ala.App. 303 , 208 So.2d 212 (1967); Martin v. State, 50 Ala.App. 1 , 276 So.2d 149 (1973); Watson v. State, 30 Ala.App. 184 , 2 So.2d 470 (1941); and Meadows v. State, 38 Ala.App. 319 , 82 So.2d 811 (1955). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Aldio v. State
green
2 sentences1980Aldio v. State, 44 Ala.App. 303 , 208 So.2d 212 (1967); Martin v. State, 50 Ala.App. 1 , 276 So.2d 149 (1973); Watson v. State, 30 Ala.App. 184 , 2 So.2d 470 (1941); and Meadows v. State, 38 Ala.App. 319 , 82 So.2d 811 (1955). 1980Aldio v. State, 44 Ala.App. 303 , 208 So.2d 212 (1967); Martin v. State, 50 Ala.App. 1 , 276 So.2d 149 (1973); Watson v. State, 30 Ala.App. 184 , 2 So.2d 470 (1941); and Meadows v. State, 38 Ala.App. 319 , 82 So.2d 811 (1955). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Martin v. State
neutral
2 sentences1980Aldio v. State, 44 Ala.App. 303 , 208 So.2d 212 (1967); Martin v. State, 50 Ala.App. 1 , 276 So.2d 149 (1973); Watson v. State, 30 Ala.App. 184 , 2 So.2d 470 (1941); and Meadows v. State, 38 Ala.App. 319 , 82 So.2d 811 (1955). 1980Aldio v. State, 44 Ala.App. 303 , 208 So.2d 212 (1967); Martin v. State, 50 Ala.App. 1 , 276 So.2d 149 (1973); Watson v. State, 30 Ala.App. 184 , 2 So.2d 470 (1941); and Meadows v. State, 38 Ala.App. 319 , 82 So.2d 811 (1955). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Watson v. State
green
2 sentences1980Aldio v. State, 44 Ala.App. 303 , 208 So.2d 212 (1967); Martin v. State, 50 Ala.App. 1 , 276 So.2d 149 (1973); Watson v. State, 30 Ala.App. 184 , 2 So.2d 470 (1941); and Meadows v. State, 38 Ala.App. 319 , 82 So.2d 811 (1955). 1980Aldio v. State, 44 Ala.App. 303 , 208 So.2d 212 (1967); Martin v. State, 50 Ala.App. 1 , 276 So.2d 149 (1973); Watson v. State, 30 Ala.App. 184 , 2 So.2d 470 (1941); and Meadows v. State, 38 Ala.App. 319 , 82 So.2d 811 (1955). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
National Security Fire & Casualty Insurance v. Brannon
green
1 sentence1975The evidence to us is not as convincing as appears in the case of Muery v. Muery, 46 Ala. 617 , 247 So.2d 123 , cert. denied 287 Ala. 737 , 247 So.2d 128 ; A. & E. 830(1), Divorce, 206, 269(9). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Muery v. Muery
green
1 sentence1975The evidence to us is not as convincing as appears in the case of Muery v. Muery, 46 Ala. 617 , 247 So.2d 123 , cert. denied 287 Ala. 737 , 247 So.2d 128 ; A. & E. 830(1), Divorce, 206, 269(9). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Muery v. Muery
green
1 sentence1975The evidence to us is not as convincing as appears in the case of Muery v. Muery, 46 Ala. 617 , 247 So.2d 123 , cert. denied 287 Ala. 737 , 247 So.2d 128 ; A. & E. 830(1), Divorce, 206, 269(9). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Alabama Great Southern R. R. v. Christian
green
1 sentence1965Co. v. Christian, 82 Ala. 307, 309 , 1 So. 121 , 122; Ex parte Crawford, 244 Ala. 493 , 14 So.2d 379 . | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Ex Parte Crawford
neutral
2 sentences1965Co. v. Christian, 82 Ala. 307, 309 , 1 So. 121 , 122; Ex parte Crawford, 244 Ala. 493 , 14 So.2d 379 . 1965Co. v. Christian, 82 Ala. 307, 309 , 1 So. 121 , 122; Ex parte Crawford, 244 Ala. 493 , 14 So.2d 379 . | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Stubblefield v. State
neutral
2 sentences1955The case of Stubblefield v. State, 35 Ala. App. 419 , 47 So.2d 662, 663 , is conclusive authority for the reversal of the case at bar. 1955The case of Stubblefield v. State, 35 Ala. App. 419 , 47 So.2d 662, 663 , is conclusive authority for the reversal of the case at bar. | 1 | 1955–1955 |
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.