suggestion defense in Alabama

2004The facts of this case are easily distinguishable from those in Giles , since at no time did the jury in this case indicate that it was "hopelessly deadlocked." Moreover, the circuit court did not give an Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 , 17 S.Ct. 154 , 41 L.Ed. 528 (1896), charge.

2004The facts of this case are easily distinguishable from those in Giles , since at no time did the jury in this case indicate that it was "hopelessly deadlocked." Moreover, the circuit court did not give an Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 , 17 S.Ct. 154 , 41 L.Ed. 528 (1896), charge.

2008I also note that the cases involving pain that were listed in note 5 and overruled in the accompanying text of Ex parte Drummond Co. “all involved pain associated with the use or overuse of a scheduled member that apparently could have been avoided by the worker’s nonuse of the member,” and that Ex parte Drummond Co. overruled "those cases only 'insofar as they expanded the Bell [v. Driskill, 282 Ala. 640 , 213 So.2d 806 (1968),] test.”' Masterbrand Cabinets, Inc. v. Johnson, 984 So.2d 1136, 1144 (Ala.Civ.App.2005) (citing Ex parte Drummond Co., 837 So.2d at 834-35 ).

2008NOTES [1] As noted in Shoney's, Inc., the last-quoted sentence was modified in that case with the use of an ellipsis and bracketed phrases to avoid the suggestion of a test other than that articulated in Ex parte Drummond Co. Shoney's, Inc., 971 So.2d at 726 n. 3. [2] I also note that the cases involving pain that were listed in note 5 and overruled in the accompanying text of Ex parte Drummond Co. "all involved pain associated with the use or overuse of a scheduled member that apparently could have been avoided by the worker's nonuse of the member," and that Ex parte Drummond Co. overruled "t

2008I also note that the cases involving pain that were listed in note 5 and overruled in the accompanying text of Ex parte Drummond Co. “all involved pain associated with the use or overuse of a scheduled member that apparently could have been avoided by the worker’s nonuse of the member,” and that Ex parte Drummond Co. overruled "those cases only 'insofar as they expanded the Bell [v. Driskill, 282 Ala. 640 , 213 So.2d 806 (1968),] test.”' Masterbrand Cabinets, Inc. v. Johnson, 984 So.2d 1136, 1144 (Ala.Civ.App.2005) (citing Ex parte Drummond Co., 837 So.2d at 834-35 ).

2008NOTES [1] As noted in Shoney's, Inc., the last-quoted sentence was modified in that case with the use of an ellipsis and bracketed phrases to avoid the suggestion of a test other than that articulated in Ex parte Drummond Co. Shoney's, Inc., 971 So.2d at 726 n. 3. [2] I also note that the cases involving pain that were listed in note 5 and overruled in the accompanying text of Ex parte Drummond Co. "all involved pain associated with the use or overuse of a scheduled member that apparently could have been avoided by the worker's nonuse of the member," and that Ex parte Drummond Co. overruled "t

2008As noted in Shoney's, Inc., the last-quoted sentence was modified in that case with the use of an ellipsis and bracketed phrases to avoid the suggestion of a test other than that articulated in Ex parte Drummond Co. Shoney's, Inc., 971 So.2d at 726 n. 3. .

2008NOTES [1] As noted in Shoney's, Inc., the last-quoted sentence was modified in that case with the use of an ellipsis and bracketed phrases to avoid the suggestion of a test other than that articulated in Ex parte Drummond Co. Shoney's, Inc., 971 So.2d at 726 n. 3. [2] I also note that the cases involving pain that were listed in note 5 and overruled in the accompanying text of Ex parte Drummond Co. "all involved pain associated with the use or overuse of a scheduled member that apparently could have been avoided by the worker's nonuse of the member," and that Ex parte Drummond Co. overruled "t

2008I also note that the cases involving pain that were listed in note 5 and overruled in the accompanying text of Ex parte Drummond Co. “all involved pain associated with the use or overuse of a scheduled member that apparently could have been avoided by the worker’s nonuse of the member,” and that Ex parte Drummond Co. overruled "those cases only 'insofar as they expanded the Bell [v. Driskill, 282 Ala. 640 , 213 So.2d 806 (1968),] test.”' Masterbrand Cabinets, Inc. v. Johnson, 984 So.2d 1136, 1144 (Ala.Civ.App.2005) (citing Ex parte Drummond Co., 837 So.2d at 834-35 ).

2008NOTES [1] As noted in Shoney's, Inc., the last-quoted sentence was modified in that case with the use of an ellipsis and bracketed phrases to avoid the suggestion of a test other than that articulated in Ex parte Drummond Co. Shoney's, Inc., 971 So.2d at 726 n. 3. [2] I also note that the cases involving pain that were listed in note 5 and overruled in the accompanying text of Ex parte Drummond Co. "all involved pain associated with the use or overuse of a scheduled member that apparently could have been avoided by the worker's nonuse of the member," and that Ex parte Drummond Co. overruled "t

2001Alabama Power , 209 Ala. at 427 , 96 So. at 349 .

2001Alabama Power , 209 Ala. at 427 , 96 So. at 349 .

1996However, branch office approval is required before such an office may submit NHA loan applications. [6] Publication 4060.1, October 1980, with all changes through #3, 12/29/86; this version was in effect when UCLC obtained approval for its home office and when it made the loan to the McGehees. [7] See Smith v. First Family Financial Services, Inc., 626 So.2d 1266 (Ala.1993), regarding an attempt to avoid the 5% discount point cap of § 5-19-4(g) by not disclosing commissions to mortgage brokers as prepaid finance charges. [8] An NHA-insured mortgage loan is "federally related" as defined in § 1

1992The appellant raised no objections to any of the now-cited comments made during the prosecutor's closing argument in this sentencing hearing. "`While this failure to object does not preclude review in a capital case, it does weigh against any claim of prejudice.' Ex parte Kennedy, 472 So.2d [1106] at 1111 (emphasis in original). `This court has concluded that the failure to object to improper prosecutorial arguments ... should be weighed as part of our evaluation of the claim on the merits because of the suggestion that the defense did not consider the comments in question to be particularly h

1992The appellant raised no objections to any of the now-cited comments made during the prosecutor's closing argument in this sentencing hearing. "`While this failure to object does not preclude review in a capital case, it does weigh against any claim of prejudice.' Ex parte Kennedy, 472 So.2d [1106] at 1111 (emphasis in original). `This court has concluded that the failure to object to improper prosecutorial arguments ... should be weighed as part of our evaluation of the claim on the merits because of the suggestion that the defense did not consider the comments in question to be particularly h

1992The appellant raised no objections to any of the now-cited comments made during the prosecutor's closing argument in this sentencing hearing. "`While this failure to object does not preclude review in a capital case, it does weigh against any claim of prejudice.' Ex parte Kennedy, 472 So.2d [1106] at 1111 (emphasis in original). `This court has concluded that the failure to object to improper prosecutorial arguments ... should be weighed as part of our evaluation of the claim on the merits because of the suggestion that the defense did not consider the comments in question to be particularly h

1992The appellant raised no objections to any of the now-cited comments made during the prosecutor's closing argument in this sentencing hearing. "`While this failure to object does not preclude review in a capital case, it does weigh against any claim of prejudice.' Ex parte Kennedy, 472 So.2d [1106] at 1111 (emphasis in original). `This court has concluded that the failure to object to improper prosecutorial arguments ... should be weighed as part of our evaluation of the claim on the merits because of the suggestion that the defense did not consider the comments in question to be particularly h

1992The appellant raised no objections to any of the now-cited comments made during the prosecutor's closing argument in this sentencing hearing. "`While this failure to object does not preclude review in a capital case, it does weigh against any claim of prejudice.' Ex parte Kennedy, 472 So.2d [1106] at 1111 (emphasis in original). `This court has concluded that the failure to object to improper prosecutorial arguments ... should be weighed as part of our evaluation of the claim on the merits because of the suggestion that the defense did not consider the comments in question to be particularly h

1992The appellant raised no objections to any of the now-cited comments made during the prosecutor's closing argument in this sentencing hearing. "`While this failure to object does not preclude review in a capital case, it does weigh against any claim of prejudice.' Ex parte Kennedy, 472 So.2d [1106] at 1111 (emphasis in original). `This court has concluded that the failure to object to improper prosecutorial arguments ... should be weighed as part of our evaluation of the claim on the merits because of the suggestion that the defense did not consider the comments in question to be particularly h

1992The appellant raised no objections to any of the now-cited comments made during the prosecutor's closing argument in this sentencing hearing. "`While this failure to object does not preclude review in a capital case, it does weigh against any claim of prejudice.' Ex parte Kennedy, 472 So.2d [1106] at 1111 (emphasis in original). `This court has concluded that the failure to object to improper prosecutorial arguments ... should be weighed as part of our evaluation of the claim on the merits because of the suggestion that the defense did not consider the comments in question to be particularly h

1981In Goodyear Tire Rubber Co. of Alabama v. Downey , 266 Ala. 344 , 96 So.2d 278 (1957), the supreme court rejected the suggestion that the test of an employee's ability to earn is a comparison between the earnings before and after the injury.

1981In Goodyear Tire Rubber Co. of Alabama v. Downey , 266 Ala. 344 , 96 So.2d 278 (1957), the supreme court rejected the suggestion that the test of an employee's ability to earn is a comparison between the earnings before and after the injury.

1932McDonald v. McDonald, 212 Ala. 137 , 102 So. 38 , 36 A. L.

1932McDonald v. McDonald, 212 Ala. 137 , 102 So. 38 , 36 A. L.

1912The trial having been begun and concluded and the sentence imposed during the same day, and it appearing from the judgment entry that the defendant was present in the inception of the trial and when the sentence was imposed, it will be presumed that he was present continuously. — Dix's Case, 147 Ala. 70, 76 , 41 South. 924 , and authorities therein cited.

1912The trial having been begun and concluded and the sentence imposed during the same day, and it appearing from the judgment entry that the defendant was present in the inception of the trial and when the sentence was imposed, it will be presumed that he was present continuously. — Dix's Case, 147 Ala. 70, 76 , 41 South. 924 , and authorities therein cited.

1912See Coates v. State, 1 Ala. App. 35 , 56 South. 6 ; Savage v. State, 174 Ala. 94 , 57 South. 469 . 1 We are not able to see the force of the suggestion of error in the record which takes the point that the order of the court upon arraignment fails to show that the sheriff was required to summon the special jurors, who were yet to be summoned, in the language of the statute, “to appear in court” on the day set for the trial.

1912See Coates v. State, 1 Ala. App. 35 , 56 South. 6 ; Savage v. State, 174 Ala. 94 , 57 South. 469 . 1 We are not able to see the force of the suggestion of error in the record which takes the point that the order of the court upon arraignment fails to show that the sheriff was required to summon the special jurors, who were yet to be summoned, in the language of the statute, “to appear in court” on the day set for the trial.