reason of the general rule (Alabama) · Go Syfert
← Alabama issues

reason of the general rule in Alabama

8 Alabama opinions name it 1 courts 1989–2001 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.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
United States v. Robert Lee Morgangreen
ca10 · 1985 · cited in 3 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1991–1993
2 sentences

1993See also United States v. Morgan, 757 F.2d 1074 (10th Cir.1985).” Williams, 627 So.2d at 990.

1991See also United States v. Morgan, 757 F.2d 1074 (10th Cir.1985).

33
Rouse v. Stategreen
alacrimapp · 1989 · cited in 3 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1996–2001
2 sentences

2001In other cases, the evidence must be excluded, at least absent a showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.'" Bush v. State, 695 So.2d 70, 126-27 (Ala.Crim.App.1995), aff'd, 695 So.2d 138 (Ala.1997), quoting Rouse v. State, 548 So.2d 643, 645-46 (Ala.Crim.App.1989), quoting, in turn, Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 65-66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980) (footnotes omitted). "[T]he requirements of the Confrontation Clause are met if [the] testimony is marked with such trustworthiness that there is no material departure from the reason of the general rule, and if it bears ind

1997Ohio v. Roberts , [ 448 U.S. 56 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980)]; Mancusi v. Stubbs , 408 U.S. 204 , 92 S.Ct. 2308 , 33 L.Ed.2d 293 (1972); Rouse v. State [, 548 So.2d 643 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989)]." 695 So.2d at 127.

13
Bush v. Stategreen
alacrimapp · 1996 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001
1 sentence

2001In other cases, the evidence must be excluded, at least absent a showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.'" Bush v. State, 695 So.2d 70, 126-27 (Ala.Crim.App.1995), aff'd, 695 So.2d 138 (Ala.1997), quoting Rouse v. State, 548 So.2d 643, 645-46 (Ala.Crim.App.1989), quoting, in turn, Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 65-66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980) (footnotes omitted). "[T]he requirements of the Confrontation Clause are met if [the] testimony is marked with such trustworthiness that there is no material departure from the reason of the general rule, and if it bears ind

11
Williams v. Stategreen
alacrimapp · 1991 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1993–1993
1 sentence

1993See also United States v. Morgan, 757 F.2d 1074 (10th Cir.1985).” Williams, 627 So.2d at 990.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
Ohio v. Roberts red
scotus · 1980
2 sentences

2001In other cases, the evidence must be excluded, at least absent a showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.'" Bush v. State, 695 So.2d 70, 126-27 (Ala.Crim.App.1995), aff'd, 695 So.2d 138 (Ala.1997), quoting Rouse v. State, 548 So.2d 643, 645-46 (Ala.Crim.App.1989), quoting, in turn, Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 65-66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980) (footnotes omitted). "[T]he requirements of the Confrontation Clause are met if [the] testimony is marked with such trustworthiness that there is no material departure from the reason of the general rule, and if it bears ind

2001In other cases, the evidence must be excluded, at least absent a showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.'" Bush v. State, 695 So.2d 70, 126-27 (Ala.Crim.App.1995), aff'd, 695 So.2d 138 (Ala.1997), quoting Rouse v. State, 548 So.2d 643, 645-46 (Ala.Crim.App.1989), quoting, in turn, Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 65-66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980) (footnotes omitted). "[T]he requirements of the Confrontation Clause are met if [the] testimony is marked with such trustworthiness that there is no material departure from the reason of the general rule, and if it bears ind

61991–2001
Mancusi v. Stubbs green
scotus · 1972
2 sentences

1997Ohio v. Roberts , [ 448 U.S. 56 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980)]; Mancusi v. Stubbs , 408 U.S. 204 , 92 S.Ct. 2308 , 33 L.Ed.2d 293 (1972); Rouse v. State [, 548 So.2d 643 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989)]." 695 So.2d at 127.

1997Ohio v. Roberts , [ 448 U.S. 56 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980)]; Mancusi v. Stubbs , 408 U.S. 204 , 92 S.Ct. 2308 , 33 L.Ed.2d 293 (1972); Rouse v. State [, 548 So.2d 643 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989)]." 695 So.2d at 127.

31996–1997
Snyder v. Massachusetts green
scotus · 1934
2 sentences

1996Reflecting its underlying purpose to augment accuracy in the factfinding process by ensuring the defendant an effective means to test adverse evidence, the Clause countenances only hearsay marked with such trustworthiness that `there is no material departure from the reason of the general rule.' Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. [97], at 107 [ 54 S.Ct. 330, 333 , 78 L.Ed. 674 (1934)].... "....

1996Reflecting its underlying purpose to augment accuracy in the factfinding process by ensuring the defendant an effective means to test adverse evidence, the Clause countenances only hearsay marked with such trustworthiness that `there is no material departure from the reason of the general rule.' Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. [97], at 107 [ 54 S.Ct. 330, 333 , 78 L.Ed. 674 (1934)].... "....

21989–1996
Miles v. State green
alacrimapp · 1978
2 sentences

1996Ohio v. Roberts , 448 U.S. 56 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980); Mancusi v. Stubbs , 408 U.S. 204 , 92 S.Ct. 2308 , 33 L.Ed.2d 293 (1972); Rouse v. State , 548 So.2d 643 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989); Miles v. State , 366 So.2d 346 (Ala.Cr.App. 1978).

1996Ohio v. Roberts ; Mancusi v. Stubbs, 408 U.S. 204 , 92 S.Ct. 2308 , 33 L.Ed.2d 293 (1972); Rouse v. State; Miles v. State, 366 So.2d 346 (Ala.Cr.App.1978).

21996–1996
Ex Parte Bush green
ala · 1997
1 sentence

2001In other cases, the evidence must be excluded, at least absent a showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.'" Bush v. State, 695 So.2d 70, 126-27 (Ala.Crim.App.1995), aff'd, 695 So.2d 138 (Ala.1997), quoting Rouse v. State, 548 So.2d 643, 645-46 (Ala.Crim.App.1989), quoting, in turn, Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 65-66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980) (footnotes omitted). "[T]he requirements of the Confrontation Clause are met if [the] testimony is marked with such trustworthiness that there is no material departure from the reason of the general rule, and if it bears ind

12001–2001

Statutes the citing opinions construe

AL § Ala. Code § 13A-5-40 (4) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-5-53 (4) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-5-47 (3) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-5-49 (3) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-5-51 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

GA 10 (1924–1998) AL 8 (1989–2001) MD 8 (1972–2001) PA 5 (1985–1993) HI 5 (1923–2005) TX 5 (1986–2002) WA 5 (1975–2001) MS 4 (1986–1988) MA 4 (1982–1997) MI 4 (1974–2011) SD 4 (1984–1985) OR 3 (1982–2021) VA 3 (1918–2003) WI 3 (1981–1986) CA 3 (1987–2005) DC 3 (1981–1984) IN 2 (1896–1911) NC 2 (1984–2001) NY 2 (1882–1982) FL 2 (1988–2000) CO 2 (1888–1930) OK 2 (1986–1991) NJ 2 (1845–1845)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check