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.
8 Alabama opinions name it 1 courts 1978–1995 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cage v. Louisiana
green
2 sentences1991Specifically, the appellant contends that the instruction violated the Supreme Court’s holding in Cage v. Louisiana, 498 U.S. 39 , 111 S.Ct. 328 , 112 L.Ed.2d 339 (1990). 1991Specifically, the appellant contends that the instruction violated the Supreme Court’s holding in Cage v. Louisiana, 498 U.S. 39 , 111 S.Ct. 328 , 112 L.Ed.2d 339 (1990). | 3 | 1991–1991 |
Byrd v. State
neutral
2 sentences1995In Byrd v. State , 51 Ala. App. 234 , 237-38 , 283 So.2d 683 (1973), this court addressed a similar situation. 1995In Byrd v. State , 51 Ala. App. 234 , 237-38 , 283 So.2d 683 (1973), this court addressed a similar situation. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences1993The appellant contends that error occurred when statements made by him were admitted into evidence without proof of compliance with Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and without proof that the statements were voluntary. 1993The appellant contends that error occurred when statements made by him were admitted into evidence without proof of compliance with Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and without proof that the statements were voluntary. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Myrick v. State
neutral
1 sentence1987"The credibility of a witness may be impeached by proof of his intoxication but only if such intoxication occurs either at the time the witness takes the stand to testify or at the time he observed the facts to which he is testifying." Myrick v. State , 508 So.2d 1215 (Ala.Crim.App. 1987) (quoting C. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Howard L. Dickerson v. State of Alabama
green
2 sentences1985The trial judge denied this request, and the appellant contends this was error citing Dickerson v. State of Alabama , 667 F.2d 1364 (11th Cir. 1982). 1985In Dickerson , supra, at 1369-70 , the court stated the following: "III. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Elrod v. State
green
2 sentences1978"The issue raised by the appellant has previously been answered by the Alabama Supreme Court in Elrod v. State , 281 Ala. 331 , 202 So.2d 539 (1967). 1978"The issue raised by the appellant has previously been answered by the Alabama Supreme Court in Elrod v. State , 281 Ala. 331 , 202 So.2d 539 (1967). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.