opportunity to correct error (Alabama) · Go Syfert
← Alabama issues

opportunity to correct error in Alabama

6 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2011 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.

Followed or applied (6)

CaseFollowedCited
Finch v. Stategreen
alacrimapp · 1997 · cited in 2 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2002–2011
2 sentences

2011Finch v. State, 715 So.2d 906, 912 (Ala.Crim.App.1997) (‘An objection must be specific enough to put the trial court on notice of any alleged error and provide the court with an opportunity to correct any error if necessary.’).”); Ex parte R.D.W., 773 So.2d 426, 428-29 (Ala.2000) (“These grounds, taken together with R.D.W.’s written request, were sufficiently specific for purposes of preserving this issue for appellate review, because they put the trial court on notice of the substance of the alleged error and thereby provided that court an opportunity to correct it.

2011Finch v. State, 715 So.2d 906, 912 (Ala. Crim.App.1997) (`An objection must be specific enough to put the trial court on notice of any alleged error and provide the court with an opportunity to correct any error if necessary.')."); Ex parte R.D.W., 773 So.2d 426, 428-29 (Ala.2000) ("These grounds, taken together with R.D.W.'s written request, were sufficiently specific for purposes of preserving this issue for appellate review, because they put the trial court on notice of the substance of the alleged error and thereby provided that court an opportunity to correct it.

22
Ware v. Stategreen
alacrimapp · 2002 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011
2 sentences

2011See Ware v. State, 842 So.2d 38, 41 (Ala.Crim.App.2002) (Cobb, J. concurring in part and dissenting in part) (taking into account the language in Ware’s motion to reconsider and his language in his brief on appeal and stating “Certainly, Ware’s objection at trial was sufficient to put the trial court on notice of a potential error and to allow the trial court the opportunity to correct that error.

2011See Ware v. State, 842 So.2d 38, 41 (Ala.Crim.App.2002) (Cobb, J. concurring in part and dissenting in part) (taking into account the language in Ware's motion to reconsider and his language in his brief on appeal and stating "Certainly, Ware's objection at trial was sufficient to put the trial court on notice of a potential error and to allow the trial court the opportunity to correct that error.

11
Ex Parte RDWgreen
ala · 2000 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011
2 sentences

2011Finch v. State, 715 So.2d 906, 912 (Ala.Crim.App.1997) (‘An objection must be specific enough to put the trial court on notice of any alleged error and provide the court with an opportunity to correct any error if necessary.’).”); Ex parte R.D.W., 773 So.2d 426, 428-29 (Ala.2000) (“These grounds, taken together with R.D.W.’s written request, were sufficiently specific for purposes of preserving this issue for appellate review, because they put the trial court on notice of the substance of the alleged error and thereby provided that court an opportunity to correct it.

2011Finch v. State, 715 So.2d 906, 912 (Ala. Crim.App.1997) (`An objection must be specific enough to put the trial court on notice of any alleged error and provide the court with an opportunity to correct any error if necessary.')."); Ex parte R.D.W., 773 So.2d 426, 428-29 (Ala.2000) ("These grounds, taken together with R.D.W.'s written request, were sufficiently specific for purposes of preserving this issue for appellate review, because they put the trial court on notice of the substance of the alleged error and thereby provided that court an opportunity to correct it.

11
Ex Parte Coulliettegreen
ala · 2003 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
2 sentences

2008See, e.g., Ex parte Coulliette, 857 So.2d 793 (Ala.2003).” Because Malone did not raise before the trial court the issue of allowing a question to be asked after the parties had rested their cases, the trial court did not have an opportunity to correct its error, and Malone did not properly preserve the issue for appeal.

2008See, e.g., Ex parte Coulliette, 857 So.2d 793 (Ala.2003)." Because Malone did not raise before the trial court the issue of allowing a question to be asked after the parties had rested their cases, the trial court did not have an opportunity to correct its error, and Malone did not properly preserve the issue for appeal.

11
Mitchell v. Mitchellgreen
alacivapp · 1998 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002
2 sentences

2002See, e.g., Mitchell v. Mitchell, 723 So.2d 1267 (Ala.Civ.App.1998); Murphree v. Murphree, 579 So.2d 634 (Ala.Civ.App. 1991); Jones v. Haraway, 537 So.2d 946 (Ala.Civ.App.1988); Smith v. Smith, 464 So.2d 97 (Ala.Civ.App.1985).

2002See, e.g., Mitchell v. Mitchell , 723 So.2d 1267 (Ala.Civ.App. 1998); Murphree v. Murphree , 579 So.2d 634 (Ala.Civ.App. 1991); Jones v. Haraway , 537 So.2d 946 (Ala.Civ.App. 1988); Smith v. Smith , 464 So.2d 97 (Ala.Civ.App. 1985).

11
Coleman v. Tabergreen
ala · 1990 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1993–1993
1 sentence

1993See, e.g., Coleman v. Taber , 572 So.2d 399 , 402 (Ala. 1990).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
Jones v. Haraway green
alacivapp · 1988
2 sentences

2002See, e.g., Mitchell v. Mitchell, 723 So.2d 1267 (Ala.Civ.App.1998); Murphree v. Murphree, 579 So.2d 634 (Ala.Civ.App. 1991); Jones v. Haraway, 537 So.2d 946 (Ala.Civ.App.1988); Smith v. Smith, 464 So.2d 97 (Ala.Civ.App.1985).

2002See, e.g., Mitchell v. Mitchell , 723 So.2d 1267 (Ala.Civ.App. 1998); Murphree v. Murphree , 579 So.2d 634 (Ala.Civ.App. 1991); Jones v. Haraway , 537 So.2d 946 (Ala.Civ.App. 1988); Smith v. Smith , 464 So.2d 97 (Ala.Civ.App. 1985).

12002–2002
Smith v. Smith green
alacivapp · 1984
2 sentences

2002See, e.g., Mitchell v. Mitchell, 723 So.2d 1267 (Ala.Civ.App.1998); Murphree v. Murphree, 579 So.2d 634 (Ala.Civ.App. 1991); Jones v. Haraway, 537 So.2d 946 (Ala.Civ.App.1988); Smith v. Smith, 464 So.2d 97 (Ala.Civ.App.1985).

2002See, e.g., Mitchell v. Mitchell , 723 So.2d 1267 (Ala.Civ.App. 1998); Murphree v. Murphree , 579 So.2d 634 (Ala.Civ.App. 1991); Jones v. Haraway , 537 So.2d 946 (Ala.Civ.App. 1988); Smith v. Smith , 464 So.2d 97 (Ala.Civ.App. 1985).

12002–2002
Murphree v. Murphree green
alacivapp · 1991
2 sentences

2002See, e.g., Mitchell v. Mitchell, 723 So.2d 1267 (Ala.Civ.App.1998); Murphree v. Murphree, 579 So.2d 634 (Ala.Civ.App. 1991); Jones v. Haraway, 537 So.2d 946 (Ala.Civ.App.1988); Smith v. Smith, 464 So.2d 97 (Ala.Civ.App.1985).

2002See, e.g., Mitchell v. Mitchell , 723 So.2d 1267 (Ala.Civ.App. 1998); Murphree v. Murphree , 579 So.2d 634 (Ala.Civ.App. 1991); Jones v. Haraway , 537 So.2d 946 (Ala.Civ.App. 1988); Smith v. Smith , 464 So.2d 97 (Ala.Civ.App. 1985).

12002–2002
Orr v. State green
alactapp · 1958
2 sentences

1981Orr v. State , 40 Ala. App. 45 , 111 So.2d 627 , aff'd, 269 Ala. 176 , 111 So.2d 639 (1959).

1981Orr v. State , 40 Ala. App. 45 , 111 So.2d 627 , aff'd, 269 Ala. 176 , 111 So.2d 639 (1959).

11981–1981
Orr v. State green
ala · 1959
2 sentences

1981Orr v. State , 40 Ala. App. 45 , 111 So.2d 627 , aff'd, 269 Ala. 176 , 111 So.2d 639 (1959).

1981Orr v. State , 40 Ala. App. 45 , 111 So.2d 627 , aff'd, 269 Ala. 176 , 111 So.2d 639 (1959).

11981–1981

Where else courts name it

TX 263 (1917–2026) IL 104 (1893–2026) WA 70 (1915–2026) PA 63 (1966–2026) MI 57 (1883–2026) MO 54 (1878–2024) NH 53 (1988–2023) CA 35 (1930–2023) UT 33 (2004–2019) FL 29 (1986–2025) AR 23 (1980–2026) IA 21 (1868–2020) OR 18 (1939–2026) OH 17 (1985–2020) LA 16 (1927–2010) IN 16 (1892–2012) OK 15 (1914–2019) WI 13 (1984–2025) TN 12 (1998–2026) NM 12 (1950–2025) MS 11 (1997–2009) DC 11 (1968–2025) MT 10 (1896–2016) NY 10 (1981–2018) MD 7 (2004–2019) MA 7 (1999–2025) AZ 7 (1968–2008) KY 6 (1885–1961) AL 6 (1981–2011) WV 6 (1969–2024) SD 4 (1985–2016) CO 4 (1897–2011) NV 4 (1996–2017) NJ 3 (1984–2014) VT 3 (1933–2003) NC 2 (1991–2003) ID 2 (1974–1981) MN 2 (2002–2011) GA 2 (1978–2016)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check