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.
8 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 2003–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Schillaci v. Gentry (Ex parte Gentry)green2 sentences2018See Ex parte Gentry , 238 So.3d 66 , 72-74 (Ala. Civ. 2018See Ex parte Gentry , 238 So.3d 66 , 72-74 (Ala. Civ. | 4 | 4 |
Tucker v. Personnel Board of City of Dothangreen2 sentences2018Tucker v. Personnel Bd. of Dothan , 644 So.2d 8 , 9 (Ala. Civ. 2018Tucker v. Personnel Bd. of Dothan , 644 So.2d 8 , 9 (Ala. Civ. | 2 | 2 |
Ex Parte Northport Health Service, Inc.green1 sentence2018See Ex parte Northport Health Serv., Inc. , 682 So.2d 52 , 55 (Ala. 1996) (quoting Ex parte St. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Salernogreen2 sentences2003See State v. Thompson, 349 N.C. 483, 496-97 , 508 S.E.2d 277, 285 (1998), quoting United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 751 , 107 S.Ct. 2095 , 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987) (where the United States Supreme Court held that the pretrial detention procedures under the Bail Reform Act were sufficient to survive a facial constitutional challenge, but recognized that the procedures "`might be insufficient in some particular circumstances'"). [38] The federal district court had appointed 12 experts to assist Moody in his federal trial. 2003See State v. Thompson, 349 N.C. 483, 496-97 , 508 S.E.2d 277, 285 (1998), quoting United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 751 , 107 S.Ct. 2095 , 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987) (where the United States Supreme Court held that the pretrial detention procedures under the Bail Reform Act were sufficient to survive a facial constitutional challenge, but recognized that the procedures "`might be insufficient in some particular circumstances'"). [38] The federal district court had appointed 12 experts to assist Moody in his federal trial. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Thompsongreen2 sentences2003See State v. Thompson, 349 N.C. 483, 496-97 , 508 S.E.2d 277, 285 (1998), quoting United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 751 , 107 S.Ct. 2095 , 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987) (where the United States Supreme Court held that the pretrial detention procedures under the Bail Reform Act were sufficient to survive a facial constitutional challenge, but recognized that the procedures "`might be insufficient in some particular circumstances'"). [38] The federal district court had appointed 12 experts to assist Moody in his federal trial. 2003See State v. Thompson, 349 N.C. 483, 496-97 , 508 S.E.2d 277, 285 (1998), quoting United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 751 , 107 S.Ct. 2095 , 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987) (where the United States Supreme Court held that the pretrial detention procedures under the Bail Reform Act were sufficient to survive a facial constitutional challenge, but recognized that the procedures "`might be insufficient in some particular circumstances'"). [38] The federal district court had appointed 12 experts to assist Moody in his federal trial. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ex parte J.W.B.
green
2 sentences2018In Ex parte J.W.B. , 230 So.3d 783 , 790 (Ala. 2016), our supreme court observed that, "[i]f a party makes a constitutional argument to the trial court before a decision in the case is rendered, the constitutional issue is preserved for appellate review." In the present case, although the father's facial constitutional challenge to the GVA was not properly presented to and was not before the trial court at the time it entered its pendente lite visitation order, the father was not required to serve the attorney general before asserting his "as applied" challenge to the GVA. 2018In Ex parte J.W.B. , 230 So.3d 783 , 790 (Ala. 2016), our supreme court observed that, "[i]f a party makes a constitutional argument to the trial court before a decision in the case is rendered, the constitutional issue is preserved for appellate review." In the present case, although the father's facial constitutional challenge to the GVA was not properly presented to and was not before the trial court at the time it entered its pendente lite visitation order, the father was not required to serve the attorney general before asserting his "as applied" challenge to the GVA. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
State of Alabama v. Thornal Lee Adams.
green
1 sentence2017We can, however, consider the father's argument that § 30-3-4.2( o ) is unconstitutional as applied to him in the present case. "[A]n 'as-applied challenge' is 'a claim that a statute is unconstitutional on the facts of a particular case or in its application to a particular party.' " State v. Adams , 91 So.3d 724 , 754 (Ala. Crim. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Conlogue v. Conlogue
green
2 sentences2015In Conlogue v. Conlogue, 890 A.2d at 693-94 , the Maine Supreme Court also rejected a facial constitutional challenge to Maine’s grandparent-visitation statute, Me.Rev. 2015In Conlogue v. Conlogue, 890 A.2d at 693-94 , the Maine Supreme Court also rejected a facial constitutional challenge to Maine’s grandparent-visitation statute, Me.Rev. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Linder v. Linder
green
2 sentences2015In Linder v. Linder, 348 Ark. 322 , 72 S.W.3d 841 (2002), the Arkansas Supreme Court rejected a facial constitutional challenge to Arkansas’s grandparent-visitation statute, Ark.Code Ann., § 9-13-103, because, it held, the statute could be constitutionally applied in a narrow category of cases in which a parent had forfeited or lost his or her fundamental parental rights. 348 Ark. at 349 , 72 S.W.3d at 856 . 2015In Linder v. Linder, 348 Ark. 322 , 72 S.W.3d 841 (2002), the Arkansas Supreme Court rejected a facial constitutional challenge to Arkansas’s grandparent-visitation statute, Ark.Code Ann., § 9-13-103, because, it held, the statute could be constitutionally applied in a narrow category of cases in which a parent had forfeited or lost his or her fundamental parental rights. 348 Ark. at 349 , 72 S.W.3d at 856 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.