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.
6 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1949–1990 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 |
|---|---|---|
Corbitt v. Stategreen2 sentences1990See Corbitt v. State , 35 Ala. App. 572 , 573 , 50 So.2d 454 , 455 (1951) (where written requested charge was marked "refused," but was not signed by the trial judge, review of refusal by Court of Appeals was precluded); Womack v. State , 34 Ala. App. 487 , 488 , 41 So.2d 429 , 430 (1949) (where charge bore trial judge's signature, but was not endorsed "given" or "refused," it did "not meet the demands of the rule" and would not be reviewed). 1990See Corbitt v. State , 35 Ala. App. 572 , 573 , 50 So.2d 454 , 455 (1951) (where written requested charge was marked "refused," but was not signed by the trial judge, review of refusal by Court of Appeals was precluded); Womack v. State , 34 Ala. App. 487 , 488 , 41 So.2d 429 , 430 (1949) (where charge bore trial judge's signature, but was not endorsed "given" or "refused," it did "not meet the demands of the rule" and would not be reviewed). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
William E. Harden, Inc. v. Harden
green
2 sentences1951Harden, Inc., v. Harden, 29 Ala.App. 411 , 197 So. 94 . 1951Harden, Inc., v. Harden, 29 Ala.App. 411 , 197 So. 94 . | 2 | 1950–1951 |
Womack v. State
neutral
2 sentences1990See Corbitt v. State , 35 Ala. App. 572 , 573 , 50 So.2d 454 , 455 (1951) (where written requested charge was marked "refused," but was not signed by the trial judge, review of refusal by Court of Appeals was precluded); Womack v. State , 34 Ala. App. 487 , 488 , 41 So.2d 429 , 430 (1949) (where charge bore trial judge's signature, but was not endorsed "given" or "refused," it did "not meet the demands of the rule" and would not be reviewed). 1990See Corbitt v. State , 35 Ala. App. 572 , 573 , 50 So.2d 454 , 455 (1951) (where written requested charge was marked "refused," but was not signed by the trial judge, review of refusal by Court of Appeals was precluded); Womack v. State , 34 Ala. App. 487 , 488 , 41 So.2d 429 , 430 (1949) (where charge bore trial judge's signature, but was not endorsed "given" or "refused," it did "not meet the demands of the rule" and would not be reviewed). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Pumphrey v. State
green
2 sentences1950Kelly v. State, 1 Ala.App. 133 , 56 So. 15 ; Brooks v. State, 8 Ala.App. 277 , 62 So. 569 ; Dudley v. State, 121 Ala. 4 , 25 So. 742 ; Pumphrey v. State, 156 Ala. 103 , 47 So. 156 ; Brown v. State, 121 Ala. 9 , 25 So. 744 ; Richardson v. State, 23 Ala.App. 260 , 123 So. 283 ; Samuels v. State, supra. We are convinced also that we would be out of harmony with the authorities to declare that the lower court was in error in denying the motion for a new. trial on the ground the verdict was contrary to the great weight of the evidence. 1950Kelly v. State, 1 Ala.App. 133 , 56 So. 15 ; Brooks v. State, 8 Ala.App. 277 , 62 So. 569 ; Dudley v. State, 121 Ala. 4 , 25 So. 742 ; Pumphrey v. State, 156 Ala. 103 , 47 So. 156 ; Brown v. State, 121 Ala. 9 , 25 So. 744 ; Richardson v. State, 23 Ala.App. 260 , 123 So. 283 ; Samuels v. State, supra. We are convinced also that we would be out of harmony with the authorities to declare that the lower court was in error in denying the motion for a new. trial on the ground the verdict was contrary to the great weight of the evidence. | 1 | 1950–1950 |
Dudley v. State
neutral
1 sentence1950Kelly v. State, 1 Ala.App. 133 , 56 So. 15 ; Brooks v. State, 8 Ala.App. 277 , 62 So. 569 ; Dudley v. State, 121 Ala. 4 , 25 So. 742 ; Pumphrey v. State, 156 Ala. 103 , 47 So. 156 ; Brown v. State, 121 Ala. 9 , 25 So. 744 ; Richardson v. State, 23 Ala.App. 260 , 123 So. 283 ; Samuels v. State, supra. We are convinced also that we would be out of harmony with the authorities to declare that the lower court was in error in denying the motion for a new. trial on the ground the verdict was contrary to the great weight of the evidence. | 1 | 1950–1950 |
Brown v. State
neutral
1 sentence1950Kelly v. State, 1 Ala.App. 133 , 56 So. 15 ; Brooks v. State, 8 Ala.App. 277 , 62 So. 569 ; Dudley v. State, 121 Ala. 4 , 25 So. 742 ; Pumphrey v. State, 156 Ala. 103 , 47 So. 156 ; Brown v. State, 121 Ala. 9 , 25 So. 744 ; Richardson v. State, 23 Ala.App. 260 , 123 So. 283 ; Samuels v. State, supra. We are convinced also that we would be out of harmony with the authorities to declare that the lower court was in error in denying the motion for a new. trial on the ground the verdict was contrary to the great weight of the evidence. | 1 | 1950–1950 |
Kelly v. State
neutral
2 sentences1950Kelly v. State, 1 Ala.App. 133 , 56 So. 15 ; Brooks v. State, 8 Ala.App. 277 , 62 So. 569 ; Dudley v. State, 121 Ala. 4 , 25 So. 742 ; Pumphrey v. State, 156 Ala. 103 , 47 So. 156 ; Brown v. State, 121 Ala. 9 , 25 So. 744 ; Richardson v. State, 23 Ala.App. 260 , 123 So. 283 ; Samuels v. State, supra. We are convinced also that we would be out of harmony with the authorities to declare that the lower court was in error in denying the motion for a new. trial on the ground the verdict was contrary to the great weight of the evidence. 1950Kelly v. State, 1 Ala.App. 133 , 56 So. 15 ; Brooks v. State, 8 Ala.App. 277 , 62 So. 569 ; Dudley v. State, 121 Ala. 4 , 25 So. 742 ; Pumphrey v. State, 156 Ala. 103 , 47 So. 156 ; Brown v. State, 121 Ala. 9 , 25 So. 744 ; Richardson v. State, 23 Ala.App. 260 , 123 So. 283 ; Samuels v. State, supra. We are convinced also that we would be out of harmony with the authorities to declare that the lower court was in error in denying the motion for a new. trial on the ground the verdict was contrary to the great weight of the evidence. | 1 | 1950–1950 |
Brooks v. State
neutral
2 sentences1950Kelly v. State, 1 Ala.App. 133 , 56 So. 15 ; Brooks v. State, 8 Ala.App. 277 , 62 So. 569 ; Dudley v. State, 121 Ala. 4 , 25 So. 742 ; Pumphrey v. State, 156 Ala. 103 , 47 So. 156 ; Brown v. State, 121 Ala. 9 , 25 So. 744 ; Richardson v. State, 23 Ala.App. 260 , 123 So. 283 ; Samuels v. State, supra. We are convinced also that we would be out of harmony with the authorities to declare that the lower court was in error in denying the motion for a new. trial on the ground the verdict was contrary to the great weight of the evidence. 1950Kelly v. State, 1 Ala.App. 133 , 56 So. 15 ; Brooks v. State, 8 Ala.App. 277 , 62 So. 569 ; Dudley v. State, 121 Ala. 4 , 25 So. 742 ; Pumphrey v. State, 156 Ala. 103 , 47 So. 156 ; Brown v. State, 121 Ala. 9 , 25 So. 744 ; Richardson v. State, 23 Ala.App. 260 , 123 So. 283 ; Samuels v. State, supra. We are convinced also that we would be out of harmony with the authorities to declare that the lower court was in error in denying the motion for a new. trial on the ground the verdict was contrary to the great weight of the evidence. | 1 | 1950–1950 |
Richardson v. State
neutral
2 sentences1950Kelly v. State, 1 Ala.App. 133 , 56 So. 15 ; Brooks v. State, 8 Ala.App. 277 , 62 So. 569 ; Dudley v. State, 121 Ala. 4 , 25 So. 742 ; Pumphrey v. State, 156 Ala. 103 , 47 So. 156 ; Brown v. State, 121 Ala. 9 , 25 So. 744 ; Richardson v. State, 23 Ala.App. 260 , 123 So. 283 ; Samuels v. State, supra. We are convinced also that we would be out of harmony with the authorities to declare that the lower court was in error in denying the motion for a new. trial on the ground the verdict was contrary to the great weight of the evidence. 1950Kelly v. State, 1 Ala.App. 133 , 56 So. 15 ; Brooks v. State, 8 Ala.App. 277 , 62 So. 569 ; Dudley v. State, 121 Ala. 4 , 25 So. 742 ; Pumphrey v. State, 156 Ala. 103 , 47 So. 156 ; Brown v. State, 121 Ala. 9 , 25 So. 744 ; Richardson v. State, 23 Ala.App. 260 , 123 So. 283 ; Samuels v. State, supra. We are convinced also that we would be out of harmony with the authorities to declare that the lower court was in error in denying the motion for a new. trial on the ground the verdict was contrary to the great weight of the evidence. | 1 | 1950–1950 |
Hall v. Pearce
neutral
2 sentences1950Harden, Inc. v. Harden, 29 Ala.App. 411 , 197 So. 94 ; Hall v. Pearce 209 Ala. 397 , 96 So. 608 . 1950Harden, Inc. v. Harden, 29 Ala.App. 411 , 197 So. 94 ; Hall v. Pearce 209 Ala. 397 , 96 So. 608 . | 1 | 1950–1950 |
Berry v. State
green
2 sentences1949Title 7, Sec. 273, Code 1940; Berry v. State, 231 Ala. 437 , 165 So. 97 . 1949Title 7, Sec. 273, Code 1940; Berry v. State, 231 Ala. 437 , 165 So. 97 . | 1 | 1949–1949 |
Corder v. State
neutral
2 sentences1949Corder v. State, 32 Ala.App. 584 , 28 So.2d 651 ; J. 1949Corder v. State, 32 Ala.App. 584 , 28 So.2d 651 ; J. | 1 | 1949–1949 |
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.