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 1991–2026 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ford v. Stategreen2 sentences2005The State urges this Court to overrule Cogman , stating in its brief that we should “require that an objection to the indictment as failing to charge an offense must be raised during the ‘pendency of the proceedings’ in compliance with Rule 15.2(d) of the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure. ‘Pendency of the proceedings’ should be interpreted in line with Ex parte Harper, 594 So.2d 1181, 1191-1195 (Ala.1991).” However, this Court stated in Ford v. State, 612 So.2d 1317, 1322 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), that “[ujntil we receive any indication to the contrary, we will continue to reject application of 2005The State urges this Court to overrule Cogman , stating in its brief that we should “require that an objection to the indictment as failing to charge an offense must be raised during the ‘pendency of the proceedings’ in compliance with Rule 15.2(d) of the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure. ‘Pendency of the proceedings’ should be interpreted in line with Ex parte Harper, 594 So.2d 1181, 1191-1195 (Ala.1991).” However, this Court stated in Ford v. State, 612 So.2d 1317, 1322 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), that “[ujntil we receive any indication to the contrary, we will continue to reject application of | 2 | 2 |
Kirby v. Stategreen1 sentence2015See former § 13A-5-9(c)(3), AlaCode 1975 (amended effective May 25, 2000), a subsection of the Habitual Félony Offender Act, § 13A-5-9, Ala.Codé 1975 (“the HFOA”). 2 In March 2012 Harper filed the most recent in a series of motions for sentence reconsideration pursuant to § 13A-5-9.1, Ala.Code 1975, and Kirby v. State, 899 So.2d 968 (Ala.2004)(discussing the constitutionality of § 13A-5-9.1 and the jurisdiction of circuit courts to hear motions filed pursuant to that Code section), often referred to as a “Kirby motion.” The materials available for the circuit court to consider with Harper’s mo | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Harpergreen2 sentences2005The State urges this Court to overrule Cogman , stating in its brief that we should “require that an objection to the indictment as failing to charge an offense must be raised during the ‘pendency of the proceedings’ in compliance with Rule 15.2(d) of the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure. ‘Pendency of the proceedings’ should be interpreted in line with Ex parte Harper, 594 So.2d 1181, 1191-1195 (Ala.1991).” However, this Court stated in Ford v. State, 612 So.2d 1317, 1322 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), that “[ujntil we receive any indication to the contrary, we will continue to reject application of 2005The State urges this Court to overrule Cogman , stating in its brief that we should “require that an objection to the indictment as failing to charge an offense must be raised during the ‘pendency of the proceedings’ in compliance with Rule 15.2(d) of the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure. ‘Pendency of the proceedings’ should be interpreted in line with Ex parte Harper, 594 So.2d 1181, 1191-1195 (Ala.1991).” However, this Court stated in Ford v. State, 612 So.2d 1317, 1322 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), that “[ujntil we receive any indication to the contrary, we will continue to reject application of | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Alabama Republican Party v. McGinley
green
1 sentence2026In other words, on Harper's reading of the transfer statute, a circuit court must docket a will contest "following a transfer from and certification by the probate court." Id. (emphasis added). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Cochran v. State
red
1 sentence1995We note that, when complying with our remand instructions, the circuit court is within its discretion in refusing to consider Harper's motion to amend his petition so long as disallowance of the amendment is "based upon some valid ground, such as actual prejudice or undue delay," Cochran v. State , 548 So.2d 1062 , 1075 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied , 493 U.S. 900 , 110 S.Ct. 259 , 107 L.Ed.2d 208 (1989). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Brooks v. United States
green
1 sentence1995We note that, when complying with our remand instructions, the circuit court is within its discretion in refusing to consider Harper's motion to amend his petition so long as disallowance of the amendment is "based upon some valid ground, such as actual prejudice or undue delay," Cochran v. State , 548 So.2d 1062 , 1075 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied , 493 U.S. 900 , 110 S.Ct. 259 , 107 L.Ed.2d 208 (1989). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Barnes v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
green
1 sentence1995We note that, when complying with our remand instructions, the circuit court is within its discretion in refusing to consider Harper's motion to amend his petition so long as disallowance of the amendment is "based upon some valid ground, such as actual prejudice or undue delay," Cochran v. State , 548 So.2d 1062 , 1075 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied , 493 U.S. 900 , 110 S.Ct. 259 , 107 L.Ed.2d 208 (1989). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Moore v. State
green
2 sentences1992Cf. Moore v. State , 596 So.2d 53 , 53-54 , n. 1 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991). 1992Cf. Moore v. State , 596 So.2d 53 , 53-54 , n. 1 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Harper v. Regency Development Co., Inc.
green
2 sentences1991IMAC basically argues that the jury award was based on count four of the Tittles' complaint, which alleged real property damage resulting from alleged negligence or wantonness on the part of IMAC in conducting blasting operations, and it argues that "[n]o claim for abnormally dangerous activity was stated in the complaint and no evidence of abnormally dangerous activity was proven." IMAC states that it is aware of this Court's decision in Harper v. Regency Development Co. , 399 So.2d 248 (Ala. 1981), which adopted the doctrine set out in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 519 (1977), relating 1991IMAC basically argues that the jury award was based on count four of the Tittles' complaint, which alleged real property damage resulting from alleged negligence or wantonness on the part of IMAC in conducting blasting operations, and it argues that "[n]o claim for abnormally dangerous activity was stated in the complaint and no evidence of abnormally dangerous activity was proven." IMAC states that it is aware of this Court's decision in Harper v. Regency Development Co. , 399 So.2d 248 (Ala. 1981), which adopted the doctrine set out in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 519 (1977), relating | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.