7 Alabama opinions name it 1 courts 1983–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
cluster 597501green2 sentences2024Ed. 2d 425 (1972); United States v. Powell, 982 F.2d 1422, 1429 (10th Cir. 1992); United States v. Perez Sanchez, 806 F.2d 7 (1st Cir. 1986).' " (quoting United States v. Oseni, 996 F.2d 186, 188 (7th Cir. 1993))). 1994Id. at 674-76 , 102 S.Ct. at 208890 ; Illinois v. Somerville , 410 U.S. 458 , 93 S.Ct. 1066 , 35 L.Ed.2d 425 (1972); United States v. Powell , 982 F.2d 1422 , 1429 (10th Cir. 1992); United States v. Perez Sanchez , 806 F.2d 7 (1st Cir. 1986). | 1 | 2 |
Spears v. Stategreen1 sentence2024See Spears v. State, 647 So. 2d 15, 22 (Ala. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Kayode A. Oseni, Salvador A. Oseni, and Abdul K. Jafarugreen1 sentence2024Ed. 2d 425 (1972); United States v. Powell, 982 F.2d 1422, 1429 (10th Cir. 1992); United States v. Perez Sanchez, 806 F.2d 7 (1st Cir. 1986).' " (quoting United States v. Oseni, 996 F.2d 186, 188 (7th Cir. 1993))). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Diazgreen2 sentences2006See also Commonwealth v. Simons, 342 Pa.Super. 281, 291 , 492 A.2d 1119, 1124 (1985) ("In Oregon v. Kennedy , the United States Supreme Court chose to limit the availability of relief under the Double Jeopardy Clause by declaring that only misconduct intended to provoke a mistrial would constitute a bar to reprosecution."); State v. Diaz, 521 A.2d 129, 132 (R.I.1987) ("[T]he Court in Kennedy recognized only one exception to the general rule that a mistrial requested by a defendant does not bar a retrial."); Commonwealth v. Simons, 342 Pa.Super. at 287 , 492 A.2d at 1123 ("[T]he United States S 2006See also Commonwealth v. Simons , 342 Pa.Super. 281 , 291 , 492 A.2d 1119 , 1124 (1985) ("In Oregon v. Kennedy , the United States Supreme Court chose to limit the availability of relief under the Double Jeopardy Clause by declaring that only misconduct intended to provoke a mistrial would constitute a bar to reprosecution."); State v. Diaz , 521 A.2d 129 , 132 (R.I. 1987) ("[T]he Court in Kennedy recognized only one exception to the general rule that a mistrial requested by a defendant does not bar a retrial."); Commonwealth v. Simons , 342 Pa.Super. at 287 , 492 A.2d at 1123 ("[T]he United S | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Simonsgreen2 sentences2006See also Commonwealth v. Simons , 342 Pa.Super. 281 , 291 , 492 A.2d 1119 , 1124 (1985) ("In Oregon v. Kennedy , the United States Supreme Court chose to limit the availability of relief under the Double Jeopardy Clause by declaring that only misconduct intended to provoke a mistrial would constitute a bar to reprosecution."); State v. Diaz , 521 A.2d 129 , 132 (R.I. 1987) ("[T]he Court in Kennedy recognized only one exception to the general rule that a mistrial requested by a defendant does not bar a retrial."); Commonwealth v. Simons , 342 Pa.Super. at 287 , 492 A.2d at 1123 ("[T]he United S 2006See also Commonwealth v. Simons , 342 Pa.Super. 281 , 291 , 492 A.2d 1119 , 1124 (1985) ("In Oregon v. Kennedy , the United States Supreme Court chose to limit the availability of relief under the Double Jeopardy Clause by declaring that only misconduct intended to provoke a mistrial would constitute a bar to reprosecution."); State v. Diaz , 521 A.2d 129 , 132 (R.I. 1987) ("[T]he Court in Kennedy recognized only one exception to the general rule that a mistrial requested by a defendant does not bar a retrial."); Commonwealth v. Simons , 342 Pa.Super. at 287 , 492 A.2d at 1123 ("[T]he United S | 1 | 1 |
Dulaney v. Stategreen2 sentences2003Cf. Dulaney v. State, 410 So.2d 122, 125 (Ala.1981) (there is no constitutional requirement that the trial court's finding of manifest necessity be explicit). 2003Cf. Dulaney v. State , 410 So.2d 122 , 125 (Ala. 1981) (there is no constitutional requirement that the trial court's finding of manifest necessity be explicit). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Oregon v. Kennedy
green
2 sentences2024The fact that the government blunders at trial and the blunder precipitates a successful motion for a mistrial does not bar a retrial. [Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 ,] 674-76, 102 S. Ct. [2083,] 2088-90 [(1982)]; Illinois v. Somerville, 410 U.S. 458 , 93 S. Ct. 1066 , 35 L. 2011Id. at 674-76 . | 4 | 1994–2024 |
United States v. Wilfredo Perez Sanchez
green
2 sentences2024Ed. 2d 425 (1972); United States v. Powell, 982 F.2d 1422, 1429 (10th Cir. 1992); United States v. Perez Sanchez, 806 F.2d 7 (1st Cir. 1986).' " (quoting United States v. Oseni, 996 F.2d 186, 188 (7th Cir. 1993))). 1994Id. at 674-76 , 102 S.Ct. at 208890 ; Illinois v. Somerville , 410 U.S. 458 , 93 S.Ct. 1066 , 35 L.Ed.2d 425 (1972); United States v. Powell , 982 F.2d 1422 , 1429 (10th Cir. 1992); United States v. Perez Sanchez , 806 F.2d 7 (1st Cir. 1986). | 2 | 1994–2024 |
Illinois v. Somerville
green
2 sentences2024The fact that the government blunders at trial and the blunder precipitates a successful motion for a mistrial does not bar a retrial. [Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 ,] 674-76, 102 S. Ct. [2083,] 2088-90 [(1982)]; Illinois v. Somerville, 410 U.S. 458 , 93 S. Ct. 1066 , 35 L. 2024The fact that the government blunders at trial and the blunder precipitates a successful motion for a mistrial does not bar a retrial. [Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 ,] 674-76, 102 S. Ct. [2083,] 2088-90 [(1982)]; Illinois v. Somerville, 410 U.S. 458 , 93 S. Ct. 1066 , 35 L. | 2 | 1994–2024 |
Brady v. Maryland
green
2 sentences1985IV The appellant contends that a new trial should have been granted based on a violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and because of newly discovered evidence. 1985IV The appellant contends that a new trial should have been granted based on a violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and because of newly discovered evidence. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Shadle v. State
green
2 sentences1983Shadle v. State , 280 Ala. 379 , 194 So.2d 538 (1967). 1983Shadle v. State , 280 Ala. 379 , 194 So.2d 538 (1967). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.
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.