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.
10 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1890–2002 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 |
|---|---|---|
Shrout v. Thorsengreen2 sentences1993See Shrout v. Thorsen, supra, at 1226 (special concurrence of Chief Justice Torbert). 1993See Shrout v. Thorsen , supra, at 1226 (special concurrence of Chief Justice Torbert). | 1 | 1 |
Waldrop v. Stategreen2 sentences1985That rule contains a strict limitation, however: "[I]f he [the district attorney] knows before the trial that he will be a necessary witness, he should withdraw and have other counsel prosecute the case." This aspect of the rule was discussed at length by the Court of Criminal Appeals in Waldrop v. State , 424 So.2d 1345 , 1347 (Ala.Crim.App. 1983), which also quoted from State v. Hayes , 473 S.W.2d 688 , 54 A.L.R.3d 93 (Mo. 1971): "`However, the general and uniform rule is that the right of a prosecuting attorney to testify in a criminal case "is strictly limited to those instances where his 1985That rule contains a strict limitation, however: "[I]f he [the district attorney] knows before the trial that he will be a necessary witness, he should withdraw and have other counsel prosecute the case." This aspect of the rule was discussed at length by the Court of Criminal Appeals in Waldrop v. State, 424 So.2d 1345, 1347 (Ala.Crim.App.1983), which also quoted from State v. Hayes, 473 S.W.2d 688 , 54 A.L.R.3d 93 (Mo.1971): "`However, the general and uniform rule is that the right of a prosecuting attorney to testify in a criminal case "is strictly limited to those instances where his testi | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
First National Bank v. Allen
green
2 sentences1930Bank v. Allen, 100 Ala. 476 , 14 So. 335 , 27 L.R.A. 426 , 46 Am. 1918Bank v. Allen, 100 Ala. 476 , 14 South. 335 , 27 L. | 3 | 1911–1930 |
SouthTrust Securities, Inc. v. McClellan
green
2 sentences2002Instructive is the treatment we accorded the phrase "arising out of ... employment" in SouthTrust Securities, Inc. v. McClellan, 730 So.2d 620 (Ala.1999). 2002Instructive is the treatment we accorded the phrase "arising out of . . . employment" in SouthTrust Securities, Inc. v. McClellan , 730 So.2d 620 (Ala. 1999). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Hayes
green
2 sentences1985That rule contains a strict limitation, however: "[I]f he [the district attorney] knows before the trial that he will be a necessary witness, he should withdraw and have other counsel prosecute the case." This aspect of the rule was discussed at length by the Court of Criminal Appeals in Waldrop v. State , 424 So.2d 1345 , 1347 (Ala.Crim.App. 1983), which also quoted from State v. Hayes , 473 S.W.2d 688 , 54 A.L.R.3d 93 (Mo. 1971): "`However, the general and uniform rule is that the right of a prosecuting attorney to testify in a criminal case "is strictly limited to those instances where his 1985That rule contains a strict limitation, however: "[I]f he [the district attorney] knows before the trial that he will be a necessary witness, he should withdraw and have other counsel prosecute the case." This aspect of the rule was discussed at length by the Court of Criminal Appeals in Waldrop v. State , 424 So.2d 1345 , 1347 (Ala.Crim.App. 1983), which also quoted from State v. Hayes , 473 S.W.2d 688 , 54 A.L.R.3d 93 (Mo. 1971): "`However, the general and uniform rule is that the right of a prosecuting attorney to testify in a criminal case "is strictly limited to those instances where his | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Casrell v. Altec Industries, Inc.
green
1 sentence1985Casrell v. Altec Industries, Inc. , 335 So.2d 128 (Ala. 1976). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Brown v. Munger
green
2 sentences1949By his own act he makes the contract mutual, and the other party is enabled to enforce it. * * * a mutual remedy existed upon it at the time of the rendering of the decree. * * * ” [ 202 Ala. 434 , 80 So. 820 ] See also Brown v. Munger, 42 Minn. 482 , 44 N.W. 519 , cited to the same effect in the Blackburn case. 1949By his own act he makes the contract mutual, and the other party is enabled to enforce it. * * * a mutual remedy existed upon it at the time of the rendering of the decree. * * * ” [ 202 Ala. 434 , 80 So. 820 ] See also Brown v. Munger, 42 Minn. 482 , 44 N.W. 519 , cited to the same effect in the Blackburn case. | 1 | 1949–1949 |
Blackburn v. McLaughlin
green
1 sentence1949By his own act he makes the contract mutual, and the other party is enabled to enforce it. * * * a mutual remedy existed upon it at the time of the rendering of the decree. * * * ” [ 202 Ala. 434 , 80 So. 820 ] See also Brown v. Munger, 42 Minn. 482 , 44 N.W. 519 , cited to the same effect in the Blackburn case. | 1 | 1949–1949 |
Wood v. Amos
neutral
2 sentences1946Of course, as indicated, the cross-bill to this extent was improper and that ground of demurrer should have been sustained (Wood v. Amos, 236 Ala. 477 , 183 So. 639 ; Becker Roofing Company v. Meharg, 223 Ala. 163 , 134 So. 864 ; 8 Ala. Dig., Equity, ^ 196, p. 517) (if it was hot), and had the cross-bill contained no equity in the other aspect this error probably would have required a reversal. 1946Of course, as indicated, the cross-bill to this extent was improper and that ground of demurrer should have been sustained (Wood v. Amos, 236 Ala. 477 , 183 So. 639 ; Becker Roofing Company v. Meharg, 223 Ala. 163 , 134 So. 864 ; 8 Ala. Dig., Equity, ^ 196, p. 517) (if it was hot), and had the cross-bill contained no equity in the other aspect this error probably would have required a reversal. | 1 | 1946–1946 |
Becker Roofing Co. v. Meharg
neutral
2 sentences1946Of course, as indicated, the cross-bill to this extent was improper and that ground of demurrer should have been sustained (Wood v. Amos, 236 Ala. 477 , 183 So. 639 ; Becker Roofing Company v. Meharg, 223 Ala. 163 , 134 So. 864 ; 8 Ala. Dig., Equity, ^ 196, p. 517) (if it was hot), and had the cross-bill contained no equity in the other aspect this error probably would have required a reversal. 1946Of course, as indicated, the cross-bill to this extent was improper and that ground of demurrer should have been sustained (Wood v. Amos, 236 Ala. 477 , 183 So. 639 ; Becker Roofing Company v. Meharg, 223 Ala. 163 , 134 So. 864 ; 8 Ala. Dig., Equity, ^ 196, p. 517) (if it was hot), and had the cross-bill contained no equity in the other aspect this error probably would have required a reversal. | 1 | 1946–1946 |
Mose v. State
green
1 sentence1890A charge would not be objectionable on these considerations, which required the jury to find guilt, or the facts, as alleged in an indictment lor an ofl’ense in which there were no lower grades than that expressly averred, and when different allegations as to the manner and means of the act were not set forth; and in McAdory v. State, 62 Ala. 154 , an instruction was held to have been proper, Avhich asserted “the duty of the State to prove every material fact charged in” an indictment for arson in the second degree; but a reference to the authorities (M ose v. State, 36 Ala. 211 ; Joe v. State | 1 | 1890–1890 |
Joe v. State
neutral
1 sentence1890A charge would not be objectionable on these considerations, which required the jury to find guilt, or the facts, as alleged in an indictment lor an ofl’ense in which there were no lower grades than that expressly averred, and when different allegations as to the manner and means of the act were not set forth; and in McAdory v. State, 62 Ala. 154 , an instruction was held to have been proper, Avhich asserted “the duty of the State to prove every material fact charged in” an indictment for arson in the second degree; but a reference to the authorities (M ose v. State, 36 Ala. 211 ; Joe v. State | 1 | 1890–1890 |
McAdory v. State
green
1 sentence1890A charge would not be objectionable on these considerations, which required the jury to find guilt, or the facts, as alleged in an indictment lor an ofl’ense in which there were no lower grades than that expressly averred, and when different allegations as to the manner and means of the act were not set forth; and in McAdory v. State, 62 Ala. 154 , an instruction was held to have been proper, Avhich asserted “the duty of the State to prove every material fact charged in” an indictment for arson in the second degree; but a reference to the authorities (M ose v. State, 36 Ala. 211 ; Joe v. State | 1 | 1890–1890 |
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.