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.
7 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1973–2010 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 |
|---|---|---|
BELLEW v. Stategreen2 sentences2010See Bellew v. State of Mississippi, 238 Miss. 734 , 106 So.2d 146 , cited with approval in the Mabry case, supra. Neither was there any such showing of inconsisten cy in testimony given by the witness at a preliminary hearing previously held and the testimony given by her on the trial before the jury. 2010See Bellew v. State of Mississippi, 238 Miss. 734 , 106 So.2d 146 , cited with approval in the Mabry case, supra. Neither was there any such showing of inconsisten cy in testimony given by the witness at a preliminary hearing previously held and the testimony given by her on the trial before the jury. | 6 | 6 |
Ohio v. Robertsred2 sentences1993The Court characterized the questioning as follows: "[C]ounsel's questioning comported with the principal purpose of cross-examination: to challenge 'whether the declarant was sincerely telling what he believed to be the truth, whether the declarant accurately perceived and remembered the matter he related, and whether the declarant's intended meaning is adequately conveyed by the language he employed.' " 448 U.S. at 70 -71 , 100 S.Ct. at 2541 , 65 L.Ed.2d at 611 (citations and emphasis omitted). 1993The Court characterized the questioning as follows: "[C]ounsel's questioning comported with the principal purpose of cross-examination: to challenge 'whether the declarant was sincerely telling what he believed to be the truth, whether the declarant accurately perceived and remembered the matter he related, and whether the declarant's intended meaning is adequately conveyed by the language he employed.' " 448 U.S. at 70 -71 , 100 S.Ct. at 2541 , 65 L.Ed.2d at 611 (citations and emphasis omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Mabry v. Stategreen2 sentences1981See Bellew v. State of Mississippi , 238 Miss. 734 , 106 So.2d 146 , cited with approval in the Mabry [v. State , 40 Ala. App. 129 , 110 So.2d 250 ] case, supra. Neither was there any such showing of inconsistency in testimony given by the witness at a preliminary hearing previously held and the testimony given by her on the trial before the jury. 1981See Bellew v. State of Mississippi , 238 Miss. 734 , 106 So.2d 146 , cited with approval in the Mabry [v. State , 40 Ala. App. 129 , 110 So.2d 250 ] case, supra. Neither was there any such showing of inconsistency in testimony given by the witness at a preliminary hearing previously held and the testimony given by her on the trial before the jury. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.