case is harmless error (Alabama) · Go Syfert
← Alabama issues

case is harmless error in Alabama

7 Alabama opinions name it 3 courts 1992–2007 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 (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Im v. Jpfgreen
alacivapp · 1995 · cited in 4 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005
2 sentences

2005See I.M. v. J.P.F., 668 So.2d 843, 845 (Ala.Civ.App.1995)(“We note that the trial court applied the McLendon standard here rather than the ‘best interest’ standard, but because the McLendon standard is more stringent, the trial court’s error in that regard is harmless.”).

2005See I.M. v. J.P.F., 668 So.2d 843, 845 (Ala.Civ.App.1995)(“We note that the trial court applied the McLendon standard here rather than the ‘best interest’ standard, but because the McLendon standard is more stringent, the trial court’s error in that regard is harmless.”); see also O.L.D. v. J.C., supra. I find that the juvenile court’s decision finding the child to be dependent and awarding custody to the maternal grandparents to be supported by the evidence in the record on appeal.

44
Old v. Jcgreen
alacivapp · 1999 · cited in 2 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005
2 sentences

2005See I.M. v. J.P.F., 668 So.2d 843, 845 (Ala.Civ.App.1995)("We note that the trial court applied the McLendon standard here rather than the `best interest' standard, but because the McLendon standard is more stringent, the trial court's error in that regard is harmless."); see also O.L.D. v. J.C., supra. I find that the juvenile court's decision finding the child to be dependent and awarding custody to the maternal grandparents to be supported by the evidence in the record on appeal.

2005See I.M. v. J.P.F., 668 So.2d 843, 845 (Ala.Civ.App.1995)(“We note that the trial court applied the McLendon standard here rather than the ‘best interest’ standard, but because the McLendon standard is more stringent, the trial court’s error in that regard is harmless.”); see also O.L.D. v. J.C., supra. I find that the juvenile court’s decision finding the child to be dependent and awarding custody to the maternal grandparents to be supported by the evidence in the record on appeal.

22

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 (2)

CaseCitedYears
Ex Parte Rice green
ala · 1990
2 sentences

2007The purpose of Rule 32.3 is to `giv[e] the petitioner the notice he needs to attempt to formulate arguments and present evidence to "disprove [the] existence [of those grounds] by a preponderance of the evidence."' 565 So.2d at 608 (quoting language in Rule 20.3, A.R.Cr.

2007The purpose of Rule 32.3 is to ‘giv[e] the petitioner the notice he needs to attempt to formulate arguments and present evidence to “disprove [the] existence [of those grounds] by a preponderance of the evidence.” ’ 565 So.2d at 608 (quoting language in Rule 20.3, A.R.Cr.

31992–2007
Rice v. State green
alacrimapp · 1990
1 sentence

2006The purpose of Rule 32.3 is to 'giv[e] the petitioner the notice he needs to attempt to formulate arguments and present evidence to "disprove [the] existence [of those grounds] by a preponderance of the evidence."' 565 So.2d at 608 (quoting language in Rule 20.3, A.R.Cr.

12006–2006

Where else courts name it

MD 9 (2007–2022) AL 7 (1992–2007) LA 7 (1986–2010) TX 6 (1993–2006) IL 4 (1994–2023)

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