6 Alabama opinions name it 3 courts 1937–1987 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 |
|---|---|---|
Williams v. Stategreen1 sentence1987“Paragraph 4d(6)(b), Administration Regulation 403 of the State Department of Corrections, provides: “ ‘(b) The disciplinary board must be impartial meaning that a board member must not be the arresting officer, witness to the actual incident, the investigating officer, a party to the incident, the victim of the incident, or an official who has approval authority over the disciplinary.’ ” Williams v. State, 461 So.2d 1335, 1338 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 461 So.2d 1339 (Ala.1984). | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Creargreen1 sentence1984See Ex parte Crear , 460 So.2d 1208 (Ala. 1983). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Vick v. State
green
1 sentence1987See Williams v. State, supra; Vick v. State, 448 So.2d 474 (Ala.Cr.App.1984). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Ex Parte State
green
1 sentence1987“Paragraph 4d(6)(b), Administration Regulation 403 of the State Department of Corrections, provides: “ ‘(b) The disciplinary board must be impartial meaning that a board member must not be the arresting officer, witness to the actual incident, the investigating officer, a party to the incident, the victim of the incident, or an official who has approval authority over the disciplinary.’ ” Williams v. State, 461 So.2d 1335, 1338 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 461 So.2d 1339 (Ala.1984). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
cluster 291761
green
2 sentences1984As recognized in Scott v. Kilpatrick, 286 Ala. 129 , 237 So.2d 652 (1970), and Mitchell v. Louisiana High School Athletic Association, 430 F.2d 1155 (5th Cir.1970), the privilege of participating in high school athletics is outside the protection of due process. 1984As recognized in Scott v. Kilpatrick , 286 Ala. 129 , 237 So.2d 652 (1970), and Mitchell v. Louisiana High School Athletic Association , 430 F.2d 1155 (5th Cir. 1970), the privilege of participating in high school athletics is outside the protection of due process. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Wolff v. McDonnell
green
2 sentences1984The State moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that the hearing complained of met the due process requirements of Wolff v. McDonnell , 418 U.S. 539 , 94 S.Ct. 2963 , 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974), that the court had no jurisdiction to review substantive matters in disciplinary proceedings, and that the petition was not properly verified as required by § 15-21-4 , Code of Alabama 1975. 1984The State moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that the hearing complained of met the due process requirements of Wolff v. McDonnell , 418 U.S. 539 , 94 S.Ct. 2963 , 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974), that the court had no jurisdiction to review substantive matters in disciplinary proceedings, and that the petition was not properly verified as required by § 15-21-4 , Code of Alabama 1975. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Scott v. Kilpatrick
green
2 sentences1984As recognized in Scott v. Kilpatrick , 286 Ala. 129 , 237 So.2d 652 (1970), and Mitchell v. Louisiana High School Athletic Association , 430 F.2d 1155 (5th Cir. 1970), the privilege of participating in high school athletics is outside the protection of due process. 1984As recognized in Scott v. Kilpatrick , 286 Ala. 129 , 237 So.2d 652 (1970), and Mitchell v. Louisiana High School Athletic Association , 430 F.2d 1155 (5th Cir. 1970), the privilege of participating in high school athletics is outside the protection of due process. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Owens v. Washington
green
2 sentences1983Owens v. Washington , 260 Ala. 198 , 69 So.2d 694 [1953]; Porter v. Alabama Farm Bureau Mutual Cas. 1983Owens v. Washington , 260 Ala. 198 , 69 So.2d 694 [1953]; Porter v. Alabama Farm Bureau Mutual Cas. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Allison v. State
green
2 sentences1969Allison v. State, 277 Ala. 423 , 171 So.2d 239 . 1969Allison v. State, 277 Ala. 423 , 171 So.2d 239 . | 1 | 1969–1969 |
Willie B. Giles v. State of Alabama
neutral
1 sentence1969The grounds set forth in the instant petition are the same as those set forth in the earlier petition, with one exception, to wit: “(5) Petitioner alleges that he was not given a fair and impartial hearing on his coram nobis which was previously filed in this cause, Giles v. State (Ala.) 384 U.S. 383 [ 384 F.2d 383 ].” Where the allegations in a petition for writ of error coram nobis have been fully adjudicated and the petitioner makes no showing for the renewed consideration of the same matters by the court, it is not error to grant the State’s motion to dismiss the second petition. | 1 | 1969–1969 |
Lee v. Lee
green
1 sentence1937Lee v. Lee, 55 Ala. 590 -599; Ward v. Jossen et al., 218 Ala. 530 , 119 So. 220 . | 1 | 1937–1937 |
Ward v. Jossen
neutral
2 sentences1937Lee v. Lee, 55 Ala. 590 -599; Ward v. Jossen et al., 218 Ala. 530 , 119 So. 220 . 1937Lee v. Lee, 55 Ala. 590 -599; Ward v. Jossen et al., 218 Ala. 530 , 119 So. 220 . | 1 | 1937–1937 |
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.