connection requirement in Alabama

2014“The fundamental purpose of this substantial connection requirement is to give full effect to the remedial scheme created by Congress and to separate the sea-based maritime employees who are entitled to Jones Act protection from those land-based workers who have only a transitory or sporadic connection to a vessel in navigation, and therefore whose employment does not regularly expose them to the perils of the sea.” Id.

2009The fundamental purpose of this substantial connection requirement is to give .full effect to the remedial scheme created by Congress and to separate the sea-based maritime employees who are entitled to Jones Act protection from those land-based workers who have only a transitory or sporadic connection to a vessel in navigation, and therefore whose employment does not regularly expose them to the perils of the sea.” 515 U.S. at 368 , 115 S.Ct. 2172 (emphasis added). 12 Further, commenting on the “temporal” aspect (duration) of a maritime employee’s connection to a vessel in navigation, the Cha

2009This will give substance to the inquiry both as to the duration and nature of the employee’s connection to the vessel and be helpful in distinguishing land-based from sea-based employees.” Harbor Tug & Barge Co. v. Papai, 520 U.S. 548, 555 , 117 S.Ct. 1535 , 137 L.Ed.2d 800 (1997).

2009This will give substance to the inquiry both as to the duration and nature of the employee’s connection to the vessel and be helpful in distinguishing land-based from sea-based employees.” Harbor Tug & Barge Co. v. Papai, 520 U.S. 548, 555 , 117 S.Ct. 1535 , 137 L.Ed.2d 800 (1997).

2007In this connection the test [is] not a subjective one measured merely by the good faith of insured, but is an objective one, and hence the mere fact that insured believes that an injury resulting from an accident is slight, or that he does not believe that any valid claim will arise out of an accident, is not of itself an excuse for failure to give notice of the accident to insurer...'" Pan American, 289 Ala. at 214 , 266 So.2d at 771 (quoting 45 C.J.S.

2007In this connection the test [is] not a subjective one measured merely by the good faith of insured, but is an objective one, and hence the mere fact that insured believes that an injury resulting from an accident is slight, or that he does not believe that any valid claim will arise out of an accident, is not of itself an excuse for failure to give notice of the accident to insurer...'" Pan American, 289 Ala. at 214 , 266 So.2d at 771 (quoting 45 C.J.S.

1992In addition, we have held that strikes based on the veniremember's hostile attitude toward the prosecution or the veniremember's connection to defense counsel are "race neutral." Wagner v. State , 555 So.2d 1141 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989) (veniremember's looking and acting hostile towards the State held to be race-neutral reason); Williams v. State , 548 So.2d 501 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988), cert. denied , 489 U.S. 1028 , 109 S.Ct. 1159 , 103 L.Ed.2d 218 (1989) (veniremember's being married to defense attorney held to be race-neutral reason).

1992In addition, we have held that strikes based on the veniremember's hostile attitude toward the prosecution or the veniremember's connection to defense counsel are "race neutral." Wagner v. State , 555 So.2d 1141 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989) (veniremember's looking and acting hostile towards the State held to be race-neutral reason); Williams v. State , 548 So.2d 501 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988), cert. denied , 489 U.S. 1028 , 109 S.Ct. 1159 , 103 L.Ed.2d 218 (1989) (veniremember's being married to defense attorney held to be race-neutral reason).

1992In addition, we have held that strikes based on the veniremember's hostile attitude toward the prosecution or the veniremember's connection to defense counsel are "race neutral." Wagner v. State , 555 So.2d 1141 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989) (veniremember's looking and acting hostile towards the State held to be race-neutral reason); Williams v. State , 548 So.2d 501 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988), cert. denied , 489 U.S. 1028 , 109 S.Ct. 1159 , 103 L.Ed.2d 218 (1989) (veniremember's being married to defense attorney held to be race-neutral reason).

1992In addition, we have held that strikes based on the veniremember's hostile attitude toward the prosecution or the veniremember's connection to defense counsel are "race neutral." Wagner v. State , 555 So.2d 1141 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989) (veniremember's looking and acting hostile towards the State held to be race-neutral reason); Williams v. State , 548 So.2d 501 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988), cert. denied , 489 U.S. 1028 , 109 S.Ct. 1159 , 103 L.Ed.2d 218 (1989) (veniremember's being married to defense attorney held to be race-neutral reason).

1951The applicable rule was stated by Justice Brown when he was a member of this court: “The character of the accused in this respect can be made an issue only by the accused offering proof of his good character, and when he does, the state may offer countervailing evidence of his general bad character in the respect in which it has been made an issue, or may, on the cross-examination of the defendant’s witness, show reports or rumors current in the community of defendant’s residence before the alleged criminal act under investigation derogatory to his good character in the respect he has put it i

1951The applicable rule was stated by Justice Brown when he was a member of this court: “The character of the accused in this respect can be made an issue only by the accused offering proof of his good character, and when he does, the state may offer countervailing evidence of his general bad character in the respect in which it has been made an issue, or may, on the cross-examination of the defendant’s witness, show reports or rumors current in the community of defendant’s residence before the alleged criminal act under investigation derogatory to his good character in the respect he has put it i

1936Alford v. State, 26 Ala.App. 188 , 155 So. 388 , and cases cited.

1936Alford v. State, 26 Ala.App. 188 , 155 So. 388 , and cases cited.

1934The several rulings of the court in this connection were error, for, as stated in the case of Vowell v. State, 20 Ala. App. 322 , 101 So. 780 , 782: “The decisions of this state are uniform to the effect that efforts to compromise cannot be proved as admissions against the party making them.

1934The several rulings of the court in this connection were error, for, as stated in the case of Vowell v. State, 20 Ala. App. 322 , 101 So. 780 , 782: “The decisions of this state are uniform to the effect that efforts to compromise cannot be proved as admissions against the party making them.

1932Cook v. State, 162 Ala. 90 , 50 So. 319 ; Meek v. State, 117 Ala. 117 , 23 So. 155 .

1932Cook v. State, 162 Ala. 90 , 50 So. 319 ; Meek v. State, 117 Ala. 117 , 23 So. 155 .