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.
7 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1986–1995 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 |
|---|---|---|
Schutt v. Macduffgreen2 sentences1987Schultz v. Macduff, 205 Misc. 43 , 127 N.Y.S.2d 116, 125-28 (1954). 1987Schultz v. Macduff, 205 Misc. 43 , 127 N.Y.S.2d 116, 125-28 (1954). | 2 | 2 |
Allen v. Stategreen2 sentences1990The Court of Criminal Appeals has previously applied the rule we today adopt: "The results of a test of a blood sample taken from the defendant at the hospital emergency room 'for diagnostic purpose only' and as a part of routine hospital procedure was properly admitted into evidence even though the defendant had not been placed under arrest. '[W]here blood is seized only for medical purposes and not in furtherance of a criminal or accident investigation, the arrest requirement of Alabama's Implied Consent Law is not applicable.' " Allen v. State , 539 So.2d 1124 , 1125 (Ala.Crim.App. 1988), q 1990The Court of Criminal Appeals has previously applied the rule we today adopt: "The results of a test of a blood sample taken from the defendant at the hospital emergency room `for diagnostic purpose only' and as a part of routine hospital procedure was properly admitted into evidence even though the defendant had not been placed under arrest. `[W]here blood is seized only for medical purposes and not in furtherance of a criminal or accident investigation, the arrest requirement of Alabama's Implied Consent Law is not applicable.'" Allen v. State, 539 So.2d 1124, 1125 (Ala. Crim.App.1988), quot | 1 | 1 |
State v. Curtisgreen2 sentences1987The arrest requirement does not create a new rule for the admissibility of the evidence at trial.... "`The administration of a blood alcohol test is a seizure of the person, and a search of his body for evidence,' State v. Curtis, 106 Idaho 483 , 680 P.2d 1383, 1388 (1984); i.e., it is subject to Fourth Amendment requirements.... .... 1987The arrest requirement does not create a new rule for the admissibility of the evidence at trial.... "`The administration of a blood alcohol test is a seizure of the person, and a search of his body for evidence,' State v. Curtis, 106 Idaho 483 , 680 P.2d 1383, 1388 (1984); i.e., it is subject to Fourth Amendment requirements.... .... | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gore v. City of Hoover
green
2 sentences1995Gore v. City of Hoover, supra. Thus, based on this rationale, the summary judgment *851 on the false imprisonment and malicious prosecution claims was proper. " As to the false arrest claim, we acknowledge that the above-stated rationale does not strictly apply to an action for false arrest that is premised upon a negligence claim. 1995Id. | 2 | 1991–1995 |
Veasey v. State
green
2 sentences1990The Court of Criminal Appeals has previously applied the rule we today adopt: "The results of a test of a blood sample taken from the defendant at the hospital emergency room 'for diagnostic purpose only' and as a part of routine hospital procedure was properly admitted into evidence even though the defendant had not been placed under arrest. '[W]here blood is seized only for medical purposes and not in furtherance of a criminal or accident investigation, the arrest requirement of Alabama's Implied Consent Law is not applicable.' " Allen v. State , 539 So.2d 1124 , 1125 (Ala.Crim.App. 1988), q 1990The Court of Criminal Appeals has previously applied the rule we today adopt: "The results of a test of a blood sample taken from the defendant at the hospital emergency room `for diagnostic purpose only' and as a part of routine hospital procedure was properly admitted into evidence even though the defendant had not been placed under arrest. `[W]here blood is seized only for medical purposes and not in furtherance of a criminal or accident investigation, the arrest requirement of Alabama's Implied Consent Law is not applicable.'" Allen v. State, 539 So.2d 1124, 1125 (Ala. Crim.App.1988), quot | 2 | 1988–1990 |
Ex Parte Bush
green
1 sentence1988Ex parte Bush , 474 So.2d 168 (Ala. 1985). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Hays v. City of Jacksonville
green
1 sentence1988Those protections include the arrest requirement, Love , supra, Hays , supra; the *Page 322 procedures established by Alabama's implied consent law (Alabama Chemical Test for Intoxication Act, Alabama Code 1975, §§ 32-5-190 through -194), and the related provisions in § 32-5A-194 ("Chemical tests; admissible as evidence") to insure reliability of the test results; and the proper predicate for the admission of the test results at trial. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Ex Parte Love
green
1 sentence1988Those protections include the arrest requirement, Love , supra, Hays , supra; the *Page 322 procedures established by Alabama's implied consent law (Alabama Chemical Test for Intoxication Act, Alabama Code 1975, §§ 32-5-190 through -194), and the related provisions in § 32-5A-194 ("Chemical tests; admissible as evidence") to insure reliability of the test results; and the proper predicate for the admission of the test results at trial. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Maffett v. Roberts
green
1 sentence1986Maffett, supra. The purpose of the arrest requirement in the implied consent act is to meet the requirements of due process for the revocation of the driver’s license if the motorist refuses to submit to a chemical test. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.