5 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Anita Yatesgreen2 sentences2023See, e.g., United States v. Yates, 438 F.3d 1307, 1313 (11th Cir. 2006) (acknowledging Craig as the proper test for the admissibility of two-way video conference testimony and noting agreement with the Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits); Rogerson, 855 N.W.2d at 506-07 (Iowa Supreme Court approving the use of two-way video testimony for adult witnesses, provided the Craig factors are met); White v. State, 223 Md. 2023See, e.g., United States v. Yates, 438 F.3d 1307, 1313 (11th Cir. 2006) (acknowledging Craig as the proper test for the admissibility of two-way video conference testimony and noting agreement with the Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits); Rogerson, 855 N.W.2d at 506-07 (Iowa Supreme Court approving the use of two-way video testimony for adult witnesses, provided the Craig factors are met); White v. State, 223 Md. | 1 | 1 |
Maryland v. Craiggreen2 sentences2023After noting that the federal circuit courts of appeals disagreed over whether Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990), provides the proper test for admissibility of two-way video conference testimony, the court evaluated the claim under Eleventh Circuit precedent applying Craig: "Because Defendants were denied a physical face-to-face confrontation with the witnesses against them at trial, we must ask whether the requirements of the Craig rule were satisfied, justifying an exception to the physical face-to-face confrontation requirement of the Sixth Amendment. 2023After noting that the federal circuit courts of appeals disagreed over whether Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990), provides the proper test for admissibility of two-way video conference testimony, the court evaluated the claim under Eleventh Circuit precedent applying Craig: "Because Defendants were denied a physical face-to-face confrontation with the witnesses against them at trial, we must ask whether the requirements of the Craig rule were satisfied, justifying an exception to the physical face-to-face confrontation requirement of the Sixth Amendment. | 1 | 1 |
State of Iowa v. Zachariah J. Rogersongreen2 sentences2023See, e.g., United States v. Yates, 438 F.3d 1307, 1313 (11th Cir. 2006) (acknowledging Craig as the proper test for the admissibility of two-way video conference testimony and noting agreement with the Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits); Rogerson, 855 N.W.2d at 506-07 (Iowa Supreme Court approving the use of two-way video testimony for adult witnesses, provided the Craig factors are met); White v. State, 223 Md. 2023See, e.g., United States v. Yates, 438 F.3d 1307, 1313 (11th Cir. 2006) (acknowledging Craig as the proper test for the admissibility of two-way video conference testimony and noting agreement with the Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits); Rogerson, 855 N.W.2d at 506-07 (Iowa Supreme Court approving the use of two-way video testimony for adult witnesses, provided the Craig factors are met); White v. State, 223 Md. | 1 | 1 |
White v. Stategreen2 sentences2023See, e.g., United States v. Yates, 438 F.3d 1307, 1313 (11th Cir. 2006) (acknowledging Craig as the proper test for the admissibility of two-way video conference testimony and noting agreement with the Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits); Rogerson, 855 N.W.2d at 506-07 (Iowa Supreme Court approving the use of two-way video testimony for adult witnesses, provided the Craig factors are met); White v. State, 223 Md. 2023See, e.g., United States v. Yates, 438 F.3d 1307, 1313 (11th Cir. 2006) (acknowledging Craig as the proper test for the admissibility of two-way video conference testimony and noting agreement with the Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits); Rogerson, 855 N.W.2d at 506-07 (Iowa Supreme Court approving the use of two-way video testimony for adult witnesses, provided the Craig factors are met); White v. State, 223 Md. | 1 | 1 |
Gulf Land Co., Inc. v. Buzzelligreen1 sentence1994Our supreme court stated the following in Gulf Land Co. v. Buzzelli, 501 So.2d 1211, 1213 (Ala.1987): “We have stated many times that the purpose of § 40-10-83 is to preserve the right of redemption without a time limit, if the owner of the land seeking to redeem has retained possession. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Arizona v. Gant
green
2 sentences2012Instead, the circuit court, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court of the Unit ed States in Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 , 129 S.Ct. 1710 , 173 L.Ed.2d 485 (2009), held that the search was not a proper search incident to an arrest, and it granted Craig’s motion to suppress. 2012Instead, the circuit court, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court of the Unit ed States in Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 , 129 S.Ct. 1710 , 173 L.Ed.2d 485 (2009), held that the search was not a proper search incident to an arrest, and it granted Craig’s motion to suppress. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Girard v. State
green
1 sentence2004As was the case in Girard v. State , 883 So.2d 714 , 715 (Ala.Crim.App. 2002), Craig's motion to the trial court was untimely made, because he did not make the motion at or before arraignment, and the trial court did not set a later date for such motions. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
O'CONNOR v. Rabren
green
1 sentence1994O’Connor v. Rabren, 373 So.2d 302 (Ala. 1979). [Craig] is not entitled to redeem from the tax sale made the basis of her suit.” On appeal Craig contends that Willcox must prove adverse possession in excess of three years to defeat Craig’s claim of redemption brought pursuant to § 40-10-83 and that Craig has possession through the life estate tenant sufficient to redeem the property pursuant to § 40-10-83. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Smitherman v. State
green
1 sentence1988Id. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.