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 3 courts 1995–2010 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jones v. Baltazargreen2 sentences2010See also Jones v. Baltazar, 658 So.2d 420 (Ala.1995) (holding that the jury was entitled to conclude that the defendant had acted as a reasonable person under the circumstances and was accordingly not negligent even though she had rear-ended the plaintiff's stopped vehicle). 2010See also Jones v. Baltazar, 658 So.2d 420 (Ala.1995) (holding that the jury was entitled to conclude that ttle defendant had acted as a reasonable person under the circumstances and was accordingly not negligent even though she had rear-ended the plaintiffs stopped vehicle). | 1 | 1 |
Jackson v. Stategreen1 sentence2010In addition, with the exception of Phillips’s testimony, all the remaining evidence supports the conclusion that Phillips did not invoke his right to counsel at any point before or during his discussion with the Alabama investigators. “ ‘ “The question of whether a confession was voluntary is initially to be determined by the trial court.” ’ Minor v. State, 914 So.2d 372, 388 (Ala.Crim.App. 2004), quoting Jackson v. State, 562 So.2d 1373, 1381 (Ala.Crim.App.1990). ‘[A]ny conflicts in the testimony or credibility of witnesses during a suppression hearing is a matter for resolution by the trial | 1 | 1 |
Minor v. Stategreen1 sentence2010In addition, with the exception of Phillips’s testimony, all the remaining evidence supports the conclusion that Phillips did not invoke his right to counsel at any point before or during his discussion with the Alabama investigators. “ ‘ “The question of whether a confession was voluntary is initially to be determined by the trial court.” ’ Minor v. State, 914 So.2d 372, 388 (Ala.Crim.App. 2004), quoting Jackson v. State, 562 So.2d 1373, 1381 (Ala.Crim.App.1990). ‘[A]ny conflicts in the testimony or credibility of witnesses during a suppression hearing is a matter for resolution by the trial | 1 | 1 |
Phillips v. Stategreen1 sentence2005See Phillips v. State, 755 So.2d at 65 n. 3. * Note from the reporter of decisions: On December 16, 2005, on return to remand, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, without opinion. *Page 168 | 1 | 1 |
Tyson Foods, Inc. v. McCollumgreen1 sentence2004It is clear from Aldridge that “§ 25-5-11.1 demands that there be specific knowledge of the plaintiffs claim for benefits on the part of the one who terminated the plaintiff, and that that knowledge be the sole motivating force behind the termination.” Tyson Foods, Inc. v. McCollum, 881 So.2d at 983 (first emphasis added; second emphasis in original; some emphasis omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bush v. Gore
green
2 sentences2010(Phillips’s brief, at 142^14.) Phillips cites Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 , 121 S.Ct. 525 , 148 L.Ed.2d 388 (2000), for the proposition that “claims like this one and the one in Bush are not based on an individual act of discrimination, but rather challenge a system in which uncontrolled official discretion makes arbitrary and unequal treatment inevitable.” (Phillips’s brief, at p. 142.)(Emphasis added.) Bush v. Gore involved a 2000 presidential election vote-counting controversy in the State of Florida, in which the Supreme Court held that where a state court orders a statewide vote recount, “t 2010(Phillips’s brief, at 142^14.) Phillips cites Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 , 121 S.Ct. 525 , 148 L.Ed.2d 388 (2000), for the proposition that “claims like this one and the one in Bush are not based on an individual act of discrimination, but rather challenge a system in which uncontrolled official discretion makes arbitrary and unequal treatment inevitable.” (Phillips’s brief, at p. 142.)(Emphasis added.) Bush v. Gore involved a 2000 presidential election vote-counting controversy in the State of Florida, in which the Supreme Court held that where a state court orders a statewide vote recount, “t | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Barber v. State
green
1 sentence2010In the capital-murder case of Gobble v. State, [Ms. CR-05-0225, February 5, 2010] — So.3d -,-(Ala.Crim.App.2010), Gobble argued that her “‘presumption of innocence’ was destroyed when the jury was allowed to see her in shackles and an orange prison-issued jumpsuit during her third videotaped statement to police.” This Court disagreed, reasoning: “In Barber v. State, 952 So.2d 393 (Ala.Crim.App.2005), we addressed whether it was reversible error to allow a videotape of the defendant’s statement to be shown to the jury when the videotape showed the defendant wearing handcuffs. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Lewis v. State
green
1 sentence2010A claim similar to the one Phillips raises — also predicated on the holding in Bush v. Gor e—was raised in Lewis v. State, 24 So.3d 480 (Ala.Crim. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2010Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). . 2010Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Grayson v. State
green
1 sentence2010So those experts did not testify though the reports were entered in evidence.” (R. 861.) Phillips argues on appeal that “the particularized need of preparing for impeachment of prosecution witnesses should suffice, to obtain a free copy of a transcript or funds to purchase said transcript.” (Phillips’s brief, at 13.) In the capital-murder case of Grayson v. State, 824 So.2d 804 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), this Court addressed Grayson’s claim that the trial court erred in refusing to supply defense counsel with copies of the trial transcripts of his three codefendants. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Latham v. Phillips
green
1 sentence2006Phillips moved for a summary judgment, arguing that Latham was barred from prosecuting her claim because the statutory limitations period had expired when the action was finally "commenced." The trial court granted Phillips's motion, and this Court affirmed the trial court's judgment. 590 So.2d at 217 -18 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Lake martin/ala. Power Lic. Association, Inc. v. Alabama Power Company, Inc.
green
1 sentence2002That being the case, there was no proper evidence supporting Phillips' claim of an oral partnership, and the trial court erred by not granting Wood's motion for a JML with respect to that claim." (Wood's brief, pp. 13-15.) In support of his argument, Wood cites Infiniti of Mobile, Inc. v. Office, 727 So.2d 42 (Ala.1999), and Lake Martin/Alabama Power Licensee Assoc. v. *959 Alabama Power Co., 601 So.2d 942 (Ala. 1992). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Monsanto Co. v. Benton Farm
green
2 sentences2002After considering Phillips's submission and Stevens's response, the trial court rescinded its December 18, 2001, order denying Phillips's motion to compel arbitration and entered the following order, compelling Stevens to arbitrate her claims against Phillips: "On January 11, 2002, the Defendants filed a Motion entitled `Motion to Reconsider Denial of the Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration and Defendants' Second Motion to Compel Arbitration.' The Court has reviewed two cases directly on point: Ex parte Gray, 686 So.2d 250 (Ala.1996), and Monsanto Company v. Benton Farm, 813 So.2d 867 (Al 2002After considering Phillips's submission and Stevens's response, the trial court rescinded its December 18, 2001, order denying Phillips's motion to compel arbitration and entered the following order, compelling Stevens to arbitrate her claims against Phillips: "On January 11, 2002, the Defendants filed a Motion entitled `Motion to Reconsider Denial of the Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration and Defendants' Second Motion to Compel Arbitration.' The Court has reviewed two cases directly on point: Ex parte Gray, 686 So.2d 250 (Ala.1996), and Monsanto Company v. Benton Farm, 813 So.2d 867 (Al | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Ex Parte Gray
green
2 sentences2002After considering Phillips's submission and Stevens's response, the trial court rescinded its December 18, 2001, order denying Phillips's motion to compel arbitration and entered the following order, compelling Stevens to arbitrate her claims against Phillips: "On January 11, 2002, the Defendants filed a Motion entitled `Motion to Reconsider Denial of the Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration and Defendants' Second Motion to Compel Arbitration.' The Court has reviewed two cases directly on point: Ex parte Gray, 686 So.2d 250 (Ala.1996), and Monsanto Company v. Benton Farm, 813 So.2d 867 (Al 2002After considering Phillips's submission and Stevens's response, the trial court rescinded its December 18, 2001, order denying Phillips's motion to compel arbitration and entered the following order, compelling Stevens to arbitrate her claims against Phillips: "On January 11, 2002, the Defendants filed a Motion entitled `Motion to Reconsider Denial of the Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration and Defendants' Second Motion to Compel Arbitration.' The Court has reviewed two cases directly on point: Ex parte Gray, 686 So.2d 250 (Ala.1996), and Monsanto Company v. Benton Farm, 813 So.2d 867 (Al | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Infiniti of Mobile, Inc. v. Office
green
1 sentence2002That being the case, there was no proper evidence supporting Phillips' claim of an oral partnership, and the trial court erred by not granting Wood's motion for a JML with respect to that claim." (Wood's brief, pp. 13-15.) In support of his argument, Wood cites Infiniti of Mobile, Inc. v. Office, 727 So.2d 42 (Ala.1999), and Lake Martin/Alabama Power Licensee Assoc. v. *959 Alabama Power Co., 601 So.2d 942 (Ala. 1992). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Phillips v. State
green
1 sentence1995In today’s opinion, the majority has incorrectly extended the holding of Phillips v. State, 545 So.2d 221 (Ala.Crim.App.1989). 2 In Ex Parte Loyd, 580 So.2d 1374 (Ala.1991), this Court cited the Phillips rule and held that in a rape case prior false charges against third parties were also admissible to show a common scheme, plan, design, or system by the prosecutrix. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Ex Parte Loyd
green
1 sentence1995In today’s opinion, the majority has incorrectly extended the holding of Phillips v. State, 545 So.2d 221 (Ala.Crim.App.1989). 2 In Ex Parte Loyd, 580 So.2d 1374 (Ala.1991), this Court cited the Phillips rule and held that in a rape case prior false charges against third parties were also admissible to show a common scheme, plan, design, or system by the prosecutrix. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.