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 1977–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ex Parte Beasley
green
1 sentence2025She also contends that the juvenile court misapplied the two- pronged test set forth in Ex parte Beasley, 564 So. 2d 950 (Ala. 1990), for terminating parental rights. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Peraita v. State
green
1 sentence2005Thus, the holding in Snyder finds that plain error does not lie in capital murder cases where the jury is properly instructed either as to the admissible purpose of the prior-conviction evidence or as to the purpose for which that evidence may not be considered, unless the evidence supports the giving of both instructions upon request by defense counsel. 4 See Peraita v. State, 897 So.2d 1161 (Ala.Crim.App.2003) (wherein the trial court did not err in allowing the State to introduce evidence concerning prior convictions despite the defendant’s stipulation, because the probative value of the ev | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Ex Parte Giles
neutral
1 sentence2005Thus, the holding in Snyder finds that plain error does not lie in capital murder cases where the jury is properly instructed either as to the admissible purpose of the prior-conviction evidence or as to the purpose for which that evidence may not be considered, unless the evidence supports the giving of both instructions upon request by defense counsel. 4 See Peraita v. State, 897 So.2d 1161 (Ala.Crim.App.2003) (wherein the trial court did not err in allowing the State to introduce evidence concerning prior convictions despite the defendant’s stipulation, because the probative value of the ev | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Ex Parte Anonymous
green
1 sentence1998Ex parte Anonymous, 595 So.2d 497 (Ala.1992). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences1986In his brief, the appellant claims he was “denied effective assistance of counsel because there was no effective cross-examination of the State’s witnesses, no real pretrial discovery, no attempt to present character witnesses at trial, no attempt to discover and present factual witnesses to support the appellant’s case, and no evidence or argument was presented by counsel in opposition to the State's motion for consolidation of cases.” (Appellant’s brief, p. 6.) The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Strickland v. Washington, 1 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), pro 1986In his brief, the appellant claims he was “denied effective assistance of counsel because there was no effective cross-examination of the State’s witnesses, no real pretrial discovery, no attempt to present character witnesses at trial, no attempt to discover and present factual witnesses to support the appellant’s case, and no evidence or argument was presented by counsel in opposition to the State's motion for consolidation of cases.” (Appellant’s brief, p. 6.) The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Strickland v. Washington, 1 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), pro | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Aguilar v. Texas
red
2 sentences1981From the record there can be no question that the two pronged test of Aguilar v. Texas , 378 U.S. 108 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 , 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964) was met. 1981From the record there can be no question that the two pronged test of Aguilar v. Texas , 378 U.S. 108 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 , 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964) was met. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Quintanilla v. George
green
1 sentence1977Quintanilla v. George, Ala.Civ.App., 340 So.2d 804 , cert. denied Ala., 340 So.2d 808 (1976). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Ex Parte Quintanilla
neutral
1 sentence1977Quintanilla v. George, Ala.Civ.App., 340 So.2d 804 , cert. denied Ala., 340 So.2d 808 (1976). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
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.