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 2 courts 1983–2012 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 |
|---|---|---|
Tomlin v. Stategreen2 sentences2012“The appellant further contends that, in light of Ring [v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002)], Alabama’s standardless override results in the arbitrary application of the death penalty in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments and the Equal Protection Clause. ‘The United States Supreme Court in Ring did not invalidate its earlier holding in Hams v. Alabama, 513 U.S. 504 , 115 S.Ct. 1031 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1004 (1995), which upheld § 13A-5-47(e), Ala.Code 1975 — commonly referred to as the judicial-override statute — against constitutional atta 2010Moreover, as we stated in Sneed v. State, 1 So.3d 104 (Ala.Crim.App.2007): “The appellant further contends that, in light of Ring [v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) ], Alabama’s standardless override results in the arbitrary application of the death penalty in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments and the Equal Protection Clause. ‘The United States Supreme Court in Ring did not invalidate its earlier holding in Harris v. Alabama, 513 U.S. 504 , 115 S.Ct. 1031 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1004 (1995), which upheld § 13A-5-47(e), Ala.Code 1975 — commonly referred to as the judicial-ove | 5 | 5 |
Sneed v. Stategreen2 sentences2011Moreover, as we stated in Sneed v. State, 1 So.3d 104 (Ala.Crim.App.2007): “ ‘The appellant further contends that, in light of Ring [v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002) ], Alabama’s standardless override results in the arbitrary application of the death penalty in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments and the Equal Protection Clause. 2010Moreover, as we stated in Sneed v. State, 1 So.3d 104 (Ala.Crim.App.2007): “‘The appellant further contends that, in light of Ring [v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002) ], Alabama’s standardless override results in the arbitrary application of the death penalty in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments and the Equal Protection Clause. | 1 | 4 |
Wainwright v. Wittgreen2 sentences1999See Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 , 105 S.Ct. 844 , 83 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985); Dallas, supra. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excusing veniremember D.N. for cause. 1999See Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 , 105 S.Ct. 844 , 83 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985); Dallas, supra. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excusing veniremember D.N. for cause. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Harris v. Alabama
green
2 sentences2012“The appellant further contends that, in light of Ring [v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002)], Alabama’s standardless override results in the arbitrary application of the death penalty in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments and the Equal Protection Clause. ‘The United States Supreme Court in Ring did not invalidate its earlier holding in Hams v. Alabama, 513 U.S. 504 , 115 S.Ct. 1031 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1004 (1995), which upheld § 13A-5-47(e), Ala.Code 1975 — commonly referred to as the judicial-override statute — against constitutional atta 2012“The appellant further contends that, in light of Ring [v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002)], Alabama’s standardless override results in the arbitrary application of the death penalty in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments and the Equal Protection Clause. ‘The United States Supreme Court in Ring did not invalidate its earlier holding in Hams v. Alabama, 513 U.S. 504 , 115 S.Ct. 1031 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1004 (1995), which upheld § 13A-5-47(e), Ala.Code 1975 — commonly referred to as the judicial-override statute — against constitutional atta | 5 | 2007–2012 |
Ex Parte Tomlin
green
2 sentences2012“The appellant further contends that, in light of Ring [v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002)], Alabama’s standardless override results in the arbitrary application of the death penalty in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments and the Equal Protection Clause. ‘The United States Supreme Court in Ring did not invalidate its earlier holding in Hams v. Alabama, 513 U.S. 504 , 115 S.Ct. 1031 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1004 (1995), which upheld § 13A-5-47(e), Ala.Code 1975 — commonly referred to as the judicial-override statute — against constitutional atta 2010Moreover, as we stated in Sneed v. State, 1 So.3d 104 (Ala.Crim.App.2007): “The appellant further contends that, in light of Ring [v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) ], Alabama’s standardless override results in the arbitrary application of the death penalty in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments and the Equal Protection Clause. ‘The United States Supreme Court in Ring did not invalidate its earlier holding in Harris v. Alabama, 513 U.S. 504 , 115 S.Ct. 1031 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1004 (1995), which upheld § 13A-5-47(e), Ala.Code 1975 — commonly referred to as the judicial-ove | 5 | 2007–2012 |
Ring v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2012“The appellant further contends that, in light of Ring [v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002)], Alabama’s standardless override results in the arbitrary application of the death penalty in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments and the Equal Protection Clause. ‘The United States Supreme Court in Ring did not invalidate its earlier holding in Hams v. Alabama, 513 U.S. 504 , 115 S.Ct. 1031 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1004 (1995), which upheld § 13A-5-47(e), Ala.Code 1975 — commonly referred to as the judicial-override statute — against constitutional atta 2012“The appellant further contends that, in light of Ring [v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002)], Alabama’s standardless override results in the arbitrary application of the death penalty in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments and the Equal Protection Clause. ‘The United States Supreme Court in Ring did not invalidate its earlier holding in Hams v. Alabama, 513 U.S. 504 , 115 S.Ct. 1031 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1004 (1995), which upheld § 13A-5-47(e), Ala.Code 1975 — commonly referred to as the judicial-override statute — against constitutional atta | 4 | 2010–2012 |
Gregg v. Georgia
green
2 sentences1990Gregg v. Georgia , 428 U.S. 153 , 96 S.Ct. 2909 , 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976); Enmund v. Florida , supra. The Alabama Supreme Court has held that the imposition of the death penalty for a violation of this statute does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment nor does it violate a defendant's equal protection of the law. 1990Gregg v. Georgia , 428 U.S. 153 , 96 S.Ct. 2909 , 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976); Enmund v. Florida , supra. The Alabama Supreme Court has held that the imposition of the death penalty for a violation of this statute does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment nor does it violate a defendant's equal protection of the law. | 2 | 1983–1990 |
Dallas v. State
green
1 sentence1999See Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 , 105 S.Ct. 844 , 83 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985); Dallas, supra. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excusing veniremember D.N. for cause. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Ex Parte Harrell
red
1 sentence1990Ex parte Harrell , 470 So.2d 1309 , 1317-18 (Ala. 1985). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Beck v. State
green
1 sentence1983Gregg v. Georgia , 428 U.S. 153 , 193 , 96 S.Ct. 2909 , 2934 , 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976); Beck v. State , 396 So.2d at 664 . | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.