9 Alabama opinions name it 3 courts 1885–2009 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bishop v. Stategreen2 sentences2009See Ex parte Bruner, 681 So.2d 173 (Ala.1996) (writ of certiorari quashed as improvidently granted, but Justice Cook, concurring specially, wrote that Purkett was inappropriate as “a retreat from the standard declared in Bat son”); Bishop v. State, 690 So.2d 502, 504 (Ala.Crim.App.1996) (“[T]he Alabama Supreme Court has recently emphasized that the rule in Alabama differs substantially from the rule set out in Purkett,” citing Ex parte Bruner, supra); Ex parte Weaver, 682 So.2d 493, 493 (Ala.1996) (Houston, J., concurring specially) (noting that “the majority of this Court refuses to allow Pur 2009See Ex parte Bruner, 681 So.2d 173 (Ala.1996) (writ of certiorari quashed as improvidently granted, but Justice Cook, concurring specially, wrote that Purkett was inappropriate as "a retreat from the standard declared in Batson . "); *18 Bishop v. State, 690 So.2d 502, 504 (Ala.Crim.App.1996) ("[T]he Alabama Supreme Court has recently emphasized that the rule in Alabama differs substantially from the rule set out in Purkett , " citing Ex parte Bruner, supra); Ex parte Weaver, 682 So.2d 493, 493 (Ala.1996) (Houston, J., concurring specially) (noting that "the majority of this Court refuses to a | 1 | 1 |
Looney v. Davisgreen2 sentences2009See Ex parte Bruner, 681 So.2d 173 (Ala.1996) (writ of certiorari quashed as improvidently granted, but Justice Cook, concurring specially, wrote that Purkett was inappropriate as “a retreat from the standard declared in Bat son”); Bishop v. State, 690 So.2d 502, 504 (Ala.Crim.App.1996) (“[T]he Alabama Supreme Court has recently emphasized that the rule in Alabama differs substantially from the rule set out in Purkett,” citing Ex parte Bruner, supra); Ex parte Weaver, 682 So.2d 493, 493 (Ala.1996) (Houston, J., concurring specially) (noting that “the majority of this Court refuses to allow Pur 2009See Ex parte Bruner, 681 So.2d 173 (Ala.1996) (writ of certiorari quashed as improvidently granted, but Justice Cook, concurring specially, wrote that Purkett was inappropriate as "a retreat from the standard declared in Batson . "); *18 Bishop v. State, 690 So.2d 502, 504 (Ala.Crim.App.1996) ("[T]he Alabama Supreme Court has recently emphasized that the rule in Alabama differs substantially from the rule set out in Purkett , " citing Ex parte Bruner, supra); Ex parte Weaver, 682 So.2d 493, 493 (Ala.1996) (Houston, J., concurring specially) (noting that "the majority of this Court refuses to a | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Brunergreen2 sentences2009See Ex parte Bruner, 681 So.2d 173 (Ala.1996) (writ of certiorari quashed as improvidently granted, but Justice Cook, concurring specially, wrote that Purkett was inappropriate as "a retreat from the standard declared in Batson . "); *18 Bishop v. State, 690 So.2d 502, 504 (Ala.Crim.App.1996) ("[T]he Alabama Supreme Court has recently emphasized that the rule in Alabama differs substantially from the rule set out in Purkett , " citing Ex parte Bruner, supra); Ex parte Weaver, 682 So.2d 493, 493 (Ala.1996) (Houston, J., concurring specially) (noting that "the majority of this Court refuses to a 2009See Ex parte Bruner, 681 So.2d 173 (Ala.1996) (writ of certiorari quashed as improvidently granted, but Justice Cook, concurring specially, wrote that Purkett was inappropriate as "a retreat from the standard declared in Batson . "); *18 Bishop v. State, 690 So.2d 502, 504 (Ala.Crim.App.1996) ("[T]he Alabama Supreme Court has recently emphasized that the rule in Alabama differs substantially from the rule set out in Purkett , " citing Ex parte Bruner, supra); Ex parte Weaver, 682 So.2d 493, 493 (Ala.1996) (Houston, J., concurring specially) (noting that "the majority of this Court refuses to a | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Jacksongreen2 sentences2009(Ala.1998) (“[R]e-garding the scrutiny that a trial court is to apply to reasons offered by a proponent of a peremptory strike, we adhere to the Alabama standard declared in Ex parte Branch.”); Smith v. Jackson, 770 So.2d 1068, 1073-74 (Ala.2000) (State’s strike “was based on ‘intuitive judgment or suspicion’ and did not constitute a legitimate, race-neutral reason for the peremptory strike”). 2009(Ala.1998) ("[R]egarding the scrutiny that a trial court is to apply to reasons offered by a proponent of a peremptory strike, we adhere to the Alabama standard declared in Ex parte Branch. "); Smith v. Jackson, 770 So.2d 1068, 1073-74 (Ala.2000) (State's strike "was based on `intuitive judgment or suspicion' and did not constitute a legitimate, race-neutral reason for the peremptory strike"). | 1 | 1 |
Cofield v. Stategreen2 sentences2009See Ex parte Bruner, 681 So.2d 173 (Ala.1996) (writ of certiorari quashed as improvidently granted, but Justice Cook, concurring specially, wrote that Purkett was inappropriate as “a retreat from the standard declared in Bat son”); Bishop v. State, 690 So.2d 502, 504 (Ala.Crim.App.1996) (“[T]he Alabama Supreme Court has recently emphasized that the rule in Alabama differs substantially from the rule set out in Purkett,” citing Ex parte Bruner, supra); Ex parte Weaver, 682 So.2d 493, 493 (Ala.1996) (Houston, J., concurring specially) (noting that “the majority of this Court refuses to allow Pur 2009See Ex parte Bruner, 681 So.2d 173 (Ala.1996) (writ of certiorari quashed as improvidently granted, but Justice Cook, concurring specially, wrote that Purkett was inappropriate as "a retreat from the standard declared in Batson . "); *18 Bishop v. State, 690 So.2d 502, 504 (Ala.Crim.App.1996) ("[T]he Alabama Supreme Court has recently emphasized that the rule in Alabama differs substantially from the rule set out in Purkett , " citing Ex parte Bruner, supra); Ex parte Weaver, 682 So.2d 493, 493 (Ala.1996) (Houston, J., concurring specially) (noting that "the majority of this Court refuses to a | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hernandez v. New York
green
2 sentences2002Those federal cases do not control Alabama's peremptory challenge procedure, which is based on adequate and independent state law." The author of a lengthy special concurrence to that decision stated that the following language by the United States Supreme Court in Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, at 359-60 , 111 S.Ct. 1859 , 114 L.Ed.2d 395 , was held inappropriate as a retreat from the standard declared in Batson v. Kentucky, supra: "`In evaluating the race-neutrality of an attorney's explanation, a court must determine whether, assuming the proffered reasons for the peremptory challenge 2002Those federal cases do not control Alabama's peremptory challenge procedure, which is based on adequate and independent state law." The author of a lengthy special concurrence to that decision stated that the following language by the United States Supreme Court in Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, at 359-60 , 111 S.Ct. 1859 , 114 L.Ed.2d 395 , was held inappropriate as a retreat from the standard declared in Batson v. Kentucky, supra: "`In evaluating the race-neutrality of an attorney's explanation, a court must determine whether, assuming the proffered reasons for the peremptory challenge | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Rogers v. State
green
2 sentences1986Rogers v. State , 275 Ala. 588 , 590 , 157 So.2d 13 (1963); Smith v. State , 230 Ala. 18 , 21 , 158 So. 808 (1935); Grady v. State , 51 Ala. App. 143 , 145 , 283 So.2d 453 (1973). 1986Rogers v. State , 275 Ala. 588 , 590 , 157 So.2d 13 (1963); Smith v. State , 230 Ala. 18 , 21 , 158 So. 808 (1935); Grady v. State , 51 Ala. App. 143 , 145 , 283 So.2d 453 (1973). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Grady v. State
green
2 sentences1986Rogers v. State , 275 Ala. 588 , 590 , 157 So.2d 13 (1963); Smith v. State , 230 Ala. 18 , 21 , 158 So. 808 (1935); Grady v. State , 51 Ala. App. 143 , 145 , 283 So.2d 453 (1973). 1986Rogers v. State , 275 Ala. 588 , 590 , 157 So.2d 13 (1963); Smith v. State , 230 Ala. 18 , 21 , 158 So. 808 (1935); Grady v. State , 51 Ala. App. 143 , 145 , 283 So.2d 453 (1973). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Smith v. State
green
2 sentences1986Rogers v. State , 275 Ala. 588 , 590 , 157 So.2d 13 (1963); Smith v. State , 230 Ala. 18 , 21 , 158 So. 808 (1935); Grady v. State , 51 Ala. App. 143 , 145 , 283 So.2d 453 (1973). 1986Rogers v. State , 275 Ala. 588 , 590 , 157 So.2d 13 (1963); Smith v. State , 230 Ala. 18 , 21 , 158 So. 808 (1935); Grady v. State , 51 Ala. App. 143 , 145 , 283 So.2d 453 (1973). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Cooke v. State
green
1 sentence1962Our appellate court, in the case of Cook(e) v. State, in ( 18 Ala.App. 416 ), 93 Sou., Page (86), 90, had this to say about the doctrine of retreat: ‘This doctrine of retreat is sometimes referred to as being cowardly, but not so; it is based on the highest consideration of civilization, morals and our holy religion. | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Matthews v. State
neutral
2 sentences1916What was said in Storey’s Case has received comment and explanation in the recent case of Matthews v. State, 192 Ala. 1 , 68 South. 334 . 1916What was said in Storey’s Case has received comment and explanation in the recent case of Matthews v. State, 192 Ala. 1 , 68 South. 334 . | 1 | 1916–1916 |
Storey v. State
green
1 sentence1916This, however, is not the case. —Brake v. State, 8 Ala. App. 101 , 63 South. 11 , and cases there cited. (4) Other charges of like character, pretermitting the duty to retreat, were evidently framed to come within the language used in Storey’s Case, 71 Ala. 329 , wherein reference was made to an assault that was “manifestly felonious in its purpose and forcible in its nature,” and to the doctrine of retreat. | 1 | 1916–1916 |
Brake v. State
neutral
1 sentence1916This, however, is not the case. —Brake v. State, 8 Ala. App. 101 , 63 South. 11 , and cases there cited. (4) Other charges of like character, pretermitting the duty to retreat, were evidently framed to come within the language used in Storey’s Case, 71 Ala. 329 , wherein reference was made to an assault that was “manifestly felonious in its purpose and forcible in its nature,” and to the doctrine of retreat. | 1 | 1916–1916 |
Howell v. State
green
1 sentence1914The following cases and many others, as well as text-book writers, uphold this view:— Howell v. State, 79 Ala. 283 ; Thomason v. Gray, 81 Ala. 291 , 3 South. 38 ; Harris v. State, 123 Ala. 71 , 26 South. 515 ; Johnson v. State, 136 Ala. 79 , 34 South. 209 ; State v. Evenson, 122 Iowa, 88 , 97 N. W. 979 , 64 L. | 1 | 1914–1914 |
State v. Evenson
neutral
1 sentence1914The following cases and many others, as well as text-book writers, uphold this view:— Howell v. State, 79 Ala. 283 ; Thomason v. Gray, 81 Ala. 291 , 3 South. 38 ; Harris v. State, 123 Ala. 71 , 26 South. 515 ; Johnson v. State, 136 Ala. 79 , 34 South. 209 ; State v. Evenson, 122 Iowa, 88 , 97 N. W. 979 , 64 L. | 1 | 1914–1914 |
Carpenter v. State
neutral
1 sentence1893The remaining one, marked G, has been repeatedly held to be erroneous. — Carpenter v. The State, 98 Ala. 31 ; Fonville v. The State, 91 Ala. 40 ; Gibson v. The State, Ib. 64. | 1 | 1893–1893 |
Fallin v. State
neutral
1 sentence1889Charges 3, 4, 5 and 6 were each properly refused, because they pretermitted all inquiry as to the fault of the defendant, and authorized his acquittal, without regard to whether or not the necessity under which he fired the fatal shot was superinduced by his own wrong. —Fallin v. State, 83 Ala. 5 ; Williams v. State, Ib. 16. | 1 | 1889–1889 |
Prior v. State
neutral
1 sentence1885It predicates the right of defendant to an acquittal on the mere fact of a reasonable apprehension of an assault; and ignores a real or apparent danger to life or limb, and the doctrine of retreat. —Prior v. State, 77 Ala. 56 ; Henderson v. State, 77 Ala. 77 . | 1 | 1885–1885 |
Henderson v. State
neutral
1 sentence1885It predicates the right of defendant to an acquittal on the mere fact of a reasonable apprehension of an assault; and ignores a real or apparent danger to life or limb, and the doctrine of retreat. —Prior v. State, 77 Ala. 56 ; Henderson v. State, 77 Ala. 77 . | 1 | 1885–1885 |
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.