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 1984–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Holmes v. Concord Fire Districtgreen2 sentences2015United States v. Johnson, 451 F.3d 1239, 1243 (11th Cir.2006) (explaining that the appellant bears the burden to establish that his sentence in disproportionate); Cole v. State, 721 So.2d 255, 260 (Ala.Crim.App.1998) (recognizing that the appellant has the burden to establish that a state statute is unconstitutional); Holmes v. Concord Fire Dist., 625 So.2d 811, 812 (Ala.Civ.App.1993) (“The party mounting a constitutional challenge to a statute bears the burden of overcoming a presumption of constitutionality.”). 2015See Harris v. Wright , 93 F.3d 581 , 583 (9th Cir.1996) (recognizing that the appellant bears a heavy burden to establish that his sentence is cruel and unusual); cf. United States v. Johnson , 451 F.3d 1239 , 1243 (11th Cir.2006) (explaining *504 that the appellant bears the burden to establish that his sentence in disproportionate); Cole v. State , 721 So.2d 255 , 260 (Ala.Crim.App.1998) (recognizing that the appellant has the burden to establish that a State statute is unconstitutional); Holmes v. Concord Fire Dist. , 625 So.2d 811 , 812 (Ala.Civ.App.1993) ("The party mounting a constitutio | 5 | 6 |
Cole v. Stategreen2 sentences2015United States v. Johnson, 451 F.3d 1239, 1243 (11th Cir.2006) (explaining that the appellant bears the burden to establish that his sentence in disproportionate); Cole v. State, 721 So.2d 255, 260 (Ala.Crim.App.1998) (recognizing that the appellant has the burden to establish that a state statute is unconstitutional); Holmes v. Concord Fire Dist., 625 So.2d 811, 812 (Ala.Civ.App.1993) (“The party mounting a constitutional challenge to a statute bears the burden of overcoming a presumption of constitutionality.”). 2015See Harris v. Wright , 93 F.3d 581 , 583 (9th Cir.1996) (recognizing that the appellant bears a heavy burden to establish that his sentence is cruel and unusual); cf. United States v. Johnson , 451 F.3d 1239 , 1243 (11th Cir.2006) (explaining *504 that the appellant bears the burden to establish that his sentence in disproportionate); Cole v. State , 721 So.2d 255 , 260 (Ala.Crim.App.1998) (recognizing that the appellant has the burden to establish that a State statute is unconstitutional); Holmes v. Concord Fire Dist. , 625 So.2d 811 , 812 (Ala.Civ.App.1993) ("The party mounting a constitutio | 5 | 6 |
United States v. Michael Johnsongreen2 sentences2015United States v. Johnson, 451 F.3d 1239, 1243 (11th Cir.2006) (explaining that the appellant bears the burden to establish that his sentence in disproportionate); Cole v. State, 721 So.2d 255, 260 (Ala.Crim.App.1998) (recognizing that the appellant has the burden to establish that a state statute is unconstitutional); Holmes v. Concord Fire Dist., 625 So.2d 811, 812 (Ala.Civ.App.1993) (“The party mounting a constitutional challenge to a statute bears the burden of overcoming a presumption of constitutionality.”). 2015See Harris v. Wright , 93 F.3d 581 , 583 (9th Cir.1996) (recognizing that the appellant bears a heavy burden to establish that his sentence is cruel and unusual); cf. United States v. Johnson , 451 F.3d 1239 , 1243 (11th Cir.2006) (explaining *504 that the appellant bears the burden to establish that his sentence in disproportionate); Cole v. State , 721 So.2d 255 , 260 (Ala.Crim.App.1998) (recognizing that the appellant has the burden to establish that a State statute is unconstitutional); Holmes v. Concord Fire Dist. , 625 So.2d 811 , 812 (Ala.Civ.App.1993) ("The party mounting a constitutio | 4 | 5 |
Michael E. HARRIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert WRIGHT, Superintendent, Clallam Bay Correction Center, Respondent-Appelleegreen2 sentences2015See Harris v. Wright , 93 F.3d 581 , 583 (9th Cir.1996) (recognizing that the appellant bears a heavy burden to establish that his sentence is cruel and unusual); cf. United States v. Johnson , 451 F.3d 1239 , 1243 (11th Cir.2006) (explaining *504 that the appellant bears the burden to establish that his sentence in disproportionate); Cole v. State , 721 So.2d 255 , 260 (Ala.Crim.App.1998) (recognizing that the appellant has the burden to establish that a State statute is unconstitutional); Holmes v. Concord Fire Dist. , 625 So.2d 811 , 812 (Ala.Civ.App.1993) ("The party mounting a constitutio 2014See Harris v. Wright, 93 F.3d 581, 583 (9th Cir.1996) (recognizing that the appellant bears a heavy burden of establishing that his sentence is cruel' and unusual); cf. United States v. Johnson, 451 F.3d 1239, 1243 (11th Cir.2006) (explaining that the appellant bears, the burden of establishing that his sentence in disproportionate); Cole v. State, 721 So.2d 255, 260 (Ala.Crim.App.1998) (recognizing that the appellant has the burden of establishing that a State statute is unconstitutional); Holmes v. Concord Fire Dist., 625 So.2d 811, 812 (Ala.Civ.App.1993) (“The party mounting a constitutiona | 4 | 4 |
Hunter v. City of Pittsburghgreen2 sentences1984Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Forrester, 437 So.2d 535 (Ala.Civ.App.1983). “[A] State is afforded wide leeway when experimenting with the appropriate allocation of state legislative power.” Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa, 439 U.S. 60, 71 , 99 S.Ct. 383, 390 , 58 L.Ed.2d 292 (1978), citing, Hunter v. Pittsburgh, 207 U.S. 161 , 28 S.Ct. 40 , 52 L.Ed. 151 (1907). “‘The number, nature and duration of the powers conferred upon [municipal] corporations and the territory over which they shall be exercised rests in the absolute discretion of the state.’ 207 U.S. at 178 , 28 S.Ct. at 46 1984Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Forrester, 437 So.2d 535 (Ala.Civ.App.1983). “[A] State is afforded wide leeway when experimenting with the appropriate allocation of state legislative power.” Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa, 439 U.S. 60, 71 , 99 S.Ct. 383, 390 , 58 L.Ed.2d 292 (1978), citing, Hunter v. Pittsburgh, 207 U.S. 161 , 28 S.Ct. 40 , 52 L.Ed. 151 (1907). “‘The number, nature and duration of the powers conferred upon [municipal] corporations and the territory over which they shall be exercised rests in the absolute discretion of the state.’ 207 U.S. at 178 , 28 S.Ct. at 46 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Penry v. Lynaugh
red
2 sentences2010A. As the Court explained in Graham , — U.S. at—, 130 S.Ct. at 2023 : “The analysis begins with objective indicia of national consensus.” “ ‘[T]he “clearest and most reliable objective evidence of contemporary values is the legislation enacted by the country’s legislatures.” ’ ” Id. (quoting Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 312 , 122 S.Ct. 2242 , 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002), quoting in turn Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 331 , 109 S.Ct. 2934 , 106 L.Ed.2d 256 (1989)). 2010A. As the Court explained in Graham , — U.S. at—, 130 S.Ct. at 2023 : “The analysis begins with objective indicia of national consensus.” “ ‘[T]he “clearest and most reliable objective evidence of contemporary values is the legislation enacted by the country’s legislatures.” ’ ” Id. (quoting Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 312 , 122 S.Ct. 2242 , 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002), quoting in turn Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 331 , 109 S.Ct. 2934 , 106 L.Ed.2d 256 (1989)). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Atkins v. Virginia
green
2 sentences2010A. As the Court explained in Graham , — U.S. at—, 130 S.Ct. at 2023 : “The analysis begins with objective indicia of national consensus.” “ ‘[T]he “clearest and most reliable objective evidence of contemporary values is the legislation enacted by the country’s legislatures.” ’ ” Id. (quoting Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 312 , 122 S.Ct. 2242 , 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002), quoting in turn Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 331 , 109 S.Ct. 2934 , 106 L.Ed.2d 256 (1989)). 2010A. As the Court explained in Graham , — U.S. at—, 130 S.Ct. at 2023 : “The analysis begins with objective indicia of national consensus.” “ ‘[T]he “clearest and most reliable objective evidence of contemporary values is the legislation enacted by the country’s legislatures.” ’ ” Id. (quoting Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 312 , 122 S.Ct. 2242 , 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002), quoting in turn Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 331 , 109 S.Ct. 2934 , 106 L.Ed.2d 256 (1989)). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Graham v. Florida
green
2 sentences2010A. As the Court explained in Graham , — U.S. at—, 130 S.Ct. at 2023 : “The analysis begins with objective indicia of national consensus.” “ ‘[T]he “clearest and most reliable objective evidence of contemporary values is the legislation enacted by the country’s legislatures.” ’ ” Id. (quoting Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 312 , 122 S.Ct. 2242 , 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002), quoting in turn Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 331 , 109 S.Ct. 2934 , 106 L.Ed.2d 256 (1989)). 2010A. As the Court explained in Graham , — U.S. at—, 130 S.Ct. at 2023 : “The analysis begins with objective indicia of national consensus.” “ ‘[T]he “clearest and most reliable objective evidence of contemporary values is the legislation enacted by the country’s legislatures.” ’ ” Id. (quoting Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 312 , 122 S.Ct. 2242 , 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002), quoting in turn Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 331 , 109 S.Ct. 2934 , 106 L.Ed.2d 256 (1989)). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
City of Hoover v. Rocky Ridge Fire District
neutral
1 sentence1993City of Hoover v. Rocky Ridge Fire District , 460 So.2d 192 (Ala.Civ.App. 1984). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Forrester
green
1 sentence1984Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Forrester, 437 So.2d 535 (Ala.Civ.App.1983). “[A] State is afforded wide leeway when experimenting with the appropriate allocation of state legislative power.” Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa, 439 U.S. 60, 71 , 99 S.Ct. 383, 390 , 58 L.Ed.2d 292 (1978), citing, Hunter v. Pittsburgh, 207 U.S. 161 , 28 S.Ct. 40 , 52 L.Ed. 151 (1907). “‘The number, nature and duration of the powers conferred upon [municipal] corporations and the territory over which they shall be exercised rests in the absolute discretion of the state.’ 207 U.S. at 178 , 28 S.Ct. at 46 | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa
green
2 sentences1984Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Forrester, 437 So.2d 535 (Ala.Civ.App.1983). “[A] State is afforded wide leeway when experimenting with the appropriate allocation of state legislative power.” Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa, 439 U.S. 60, 71 , 99 S.Ct. 383, 390 , 58 L.Ed.2d 292 (1978), citing, Hunter v. Pittsburgh, 207 U.S. 161 , 28 S.Ct. 40 , 52 L.Ed. 151 (1907). “‘The number, nature and duration of the powers conferred upon [municipal] corporations and the territory over which they shall be exercised rests in the absolute discretion of the state.’ 207 U.S. at 178 , 28 S.Ct. at 46 1984Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Forrester, 437 So.2d 535 (Ala.Civ.App.1983). “[A] State is afforded wide leeway when experimenting with the appropriate allocation of state legislative power.” Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa, 439 U.S. 60, 71 , 99 S.Ct. 383, 390 , 58 L.Ed.2d 292 (1978), citing, Hunter v. Pittsburgh, 207 U.S. 161 , 28 S.Ct. 40 , 52 L.Ed. 151 (1907). “‘The number, nature and duration of the powers conferred upon [municipal] corporations and the territory over which they shall be exercised rests in the absolute discretion of the state.’ 207 U.S. at 178 , 28 S.Ct. at 46 | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.