9 Alabama opinions name it 4 courts 1848–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Salernogreen2 sentences2024The United States Supreme Court recognized the purpose of bail and its procedural, regulatory nature when considering the federal Bail Reform Act of 1984, which, similarly to Aniah's Law, "allows a federal court to detain an arrestee pending trial if the Government demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence after an adversary hearing that no release conditions 'will reasonably assure … the safety of any other person and the community." United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 741 (1987). 2024The Salerno Court concluded "that the pretrial determination contemplated by the Bail Reform Act is regulatory in nature and does not constitute punishment before trial." Id. at 748 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Melvin v. Stategreen2 sentences1990APPELL: I will abide by the Court’s ruling.” “It has been definitely settled by an overwhelming array of authorities that an adversary has the privilege to test the interest, bias, or partiality of one who testifies as a witness against him.” Melvin v. State, 32 Ala.App. 10, 14 , 21 So.2d 277, 279 (1944), cert. denied, 246 Ala. 493 , 21 So.2d 282 (1945). 1990APPELL: I will abide by the Court’s ruling.” “It has been definitely settled by an overwhelming array of authorities that an adversary has the privilege to test the interest, bias, or partiality of one who testifies as a witness against him.” Melvin v. State, 32 Ala.App. 10, 14 , 21 So.2d 277, 279 (1944), cert. denied, 246 Ala. 493 , 21 So.2d 282 (1945). | 1 | 1 |
William (Bob) Brown v. Wiley C. Edwards and All Other Constables in the State of Mississippigreen1 sentence1987Since an adversary hearing is not required, and since the probable-cause standard for pre-trial detention is the same as that for arrest, a person arrested pursuant to a warrant issued by a magistrate on a showing of probable cause is not constitutionally entitled to a separate judicial determination that there is probable cause to detain him pending trial. 443 U.S. at 142 -143 , 99 S.Ct. at 2693 -94 , 61 L.Ed.2d at 440-441 (Footnote omitted); See, Brown v. Edwards , 721 F.2d 1442 , 1452 n. 14 (5th Cir. 1984); United States v. Allen , 574 F.2d 435 , 439-440 (8th Cir. 1978). | 1 | 1 |
Baker v. McCollangreen2 sentences1987Since an adversary hearing is not required, and since the probable-cause standard for pre-trial detention is the same as that for arrest, a person arrested pursuant to a warrant issued by a magistrate on a showing of probable cause is not constitutionally entitled to a separate judicial determination that there is probable cause to detain him pending trial. 443 U.S. at 142 -143 , 99 S.Ct. at 2693 -94 , 61 L.Ed.2d at 440-441 (Footnote omitted); See, Brown v. Edwards , 721 F.2d 1442 , 1452 n. 14 (5th Cir. 1984); United States v. Allen , 574 F.2d 435 , 439-440 (8th Cir. 1978). 1987Since an adversary hearing is not required, and since the probable-cause standard for pre-trial detention is the same as that for arrest, a person arrested pursuant to a warrant issued by a magistrate on a showing of probable cause is not constitutionally entitled to a separate judicial determination that there is probable cause to detain him pending trial. 443 U.S. at 142 -143 , 99 S.Ct. at 2693 -94 , 61 L.Ed.2d at 440-441 (Footnote omitted); See, Brown v. Edwards , 721 F.2d 1442 , 1452 n. 14 (5th Cir. 1984); United States v. Allen , 574 F.2d 435 , 439-440 (8th Cir. 1978). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Withrow v. Larkin
green
2 sentences1994Moreover, "The mere exposure to evidence presented in non-adversary investigative procedures is insufficient in itself to impugn the fairness of the Board members at a later adversary hearing." Id. at 55 , 95 S.Ct. at 1468 . 1994Moreover, "The mere exposure to evidence presented in non-adversary investigative procedures is insufficient in itself to impugn the fairness of the Board members at a later adversary hearing." Id. at 55 , 95 S.Ct. at 1468 . | 2 | 1984–1994 |
Powers v. State
green
1 sentence1990APPELL: I will abide by the Court’s ruling.” “It has been definitely settled by an overwhelming array of authorities that an adversary has the privilege to test the interest, bias, or partiality of one who testifies as a witness against him.” Melvin v. State, 32 Ala.App. 10, 14 , 21 So.2d 277, 279 (1944), cert. denied, 246 Ala. 493 , 21 So.2d 282 (1945). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Melvin v. State
neutral
1 sentence1990APPELL: I will abide by the Court’s ruling.” “It has been definitely settled by an overwhelming array of authorities that an adversary has the privilege to test the interest, bias, or partiality of one who testifies as a witness against him.” Melvin v. State, 32 Ala.App. 10, 14 , 21 So.2d 277, 279 (1944), cert. denied, 246 Ala. 493 , 21 So.2d 282 (1945). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
United States v. Thomas Bruce Allen, A/K/A Tom Allen
green
1 sentence1987Since an adversary hearing is not required, and since the probable-cause standard for pre-trial detention is the same as that for arrest, a person arrested pursuant to a warrant issued by a magistrate on a showing of probable cause is not constitutionally entitled to a separate judicial determination that there is probable cause to detain him pending trial. 443 U.S. at 142 -143 , 99 S.Ct. at 2693 -94 , 61 L.Ed.2d at 440-441 (Footnote omitted); See, Brown v. Edwards , 721 F.2d 1442 , 1452 n. 14 (5th Cir. 1984); United States v. Allen , 574 F.2d 435 , 439-440 (8th Cir. 1978). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Wheeler v. State
neutral
1 sentence1979Wheeler, 47 Ala.App. at 459 . *44 The trial judge's refusal to submit the issue of the appellant's sanity to a jury was not arbitrary because it was made only after an adversary hearing and a judicial determination of the appellant's competency to stand trial. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Gable v. Jenkins
green
2 sentences1974The Court pointed out ( 309 F.Supp. at page 1001 ): "However, as to the necessity of the prior adversary hearing, this goes merely to the competency of the evidence in an obscenity prosecution and would not bar a prosecution based on other legally obtained evidence. 1974The Court pointed out ( 309 F.Supp. at page 1001 ) : “However, as to the necessity of the prior adversary hearing, this goes merely to the competency of the evidence in an obscenity prosecution and would not bar a prosecution based on other legally obtained evidence. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Drummond v. Drummond
green
2 sentences1944Drummond v. Drummond, 212 Ala. 242 , 102 So. 112 . 1944Drummond v. Drummond, 212 Ala. 242 , 102 So. 112 . | 1 | 1944–1944 |
Fenno v. Sayre
green
1 sentence1848Fenno et al. v. Sayre & Converse, 3 Ala. Rep. 458, 475 , and cases there cited ; Billington, Lessee, v. Welsh, 5 Binn. | 1 | 1848–1848 |
Lessee of Billington v. Welsh
neutral
1 sentence1848Fenno et al. v. Sayre & Converse, 3 Ala. Rep. 458, 475 , and cases there cited ; Billington, Lessee, v. Welsh, 5 Binn. | 1 | 1848–1848 |
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.