first time error (Alabama) · Go Syfert
← Alabama issues

first time error in Alabama

5 Alabama opinions name it 3 courts 1852–2014 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 (0)

CaseFollowedCited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama.

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 (9)

CaseCitedYears
Newhouse v. Miles neutral
ala · 1846
2 sentences

1889It comes too late when taken for the first time at the hearing, and will be disregarded on appeal, if it does not materially affect the propriety of the decree. —Erwin v. Ferguson, 5 Ala. 158 ; Newhouse v. Miles, 9 Ala. 460 .

1852Newhouse et al. v. Miles, 9 Ala. Rep. 460 ; Watertown v. Connor, 4 Paige, 510 ; Story’s Eq.

21852–1889
Miller v. Alabama green
scotus · 2012
1 sentence

2014“Miller established for the first time a requirement of individualized sentencing outside the death penalty context.” Craig, supra. Specifically, the Miller holding “mandates only that a sentencer follow a certain process ... before imposing a particular penalty.” — U.S. at -, 132 S.Ct at 2471 .

12014–2014
Ex Parte Fort James Operating Co. green
alacivapp · 2004
2 sentences

2005In Fort James , this court issued a writ of mandamus ordering the trial court to set aside an order allowing an employee, one week before trial, to amend his complaint for the third time, thus "reviving a previously withdrawn claim for compensation for an impairment to his back and asserting for the first time a claim for compensation for impairment to his shoulder." Ex parte Fort James Operating Co. , 905 So.2d at 844 .

2005In Fort James, this court issued a writ of mandamus ordering the trial court to set aside an order allowing an employee, one week before trial, to amend his complaint for the third time, thus "reviving a previously withdrawn claim for compensation for an impairment to his back and asserting for the first time a claim for compensation for impairment to his shoulder." Ex parte Fort James Operating Co., 905 So.2d at 844 .

12005–2005
Erwin v. Ferguson neutral
ala · 1843
1 sentence

1889It comes too late when taken for the first time at the hearing, and will be disregarded on appeal, if it does not materially affect the propriety of the decree. —Erwin v. Ferguson, 5 Ala. 158 ; Newhouse v. Miles, 9 Ala. 460 .

11889–1889
Jones v. Pope neutral
· 1844
1 sentence

1880It could only be raised by plea in abatement, and is not available when presented for the first time on error. —Jones v. Pope, 6 Ala. 154 ; Kirkman v. Patton, 19 Ala. 32 ; Mahoney v. O’Leary, 34 Ala. 97 ; Dow v. Whitman, 36 Ala. 604 .

11880–1880
Kirkman v. Patton neutral
ala · 1851
1 sentence

1880It could only be raised by plea in abatement, and is not available when presented for the first time on error. —Jones v. Pope, 6 Ala. 154 ; Kirkman v. Patton, 19 Ala. 32 ; Mahoney v. O’Leary, 34 Ala. 97 ; Dow v. Whitman, 36 Ala. 604 .

11880–1880
Mahoney v. O'Leary neutral
ala · 1859
1 sentence

1880It could only be raised by plea in abatement, and is not available when presented for the first time on error. —Jones v. Pope, 6 Ala. 154 ; Kirkman v. Patton, 19 Ala. 32 ; Mahoney v. O’Leary, 34 Ala. 97 ; Dow v. Whitman, 36 Ala. 604 .

11880–1880
Dow v. Whitman neutral
ala · 1860
1 sentence

1880It could only be raised by plea in abatement, and is not available when presented for the first time on error. —Jones v. Pope, 6 Ala. 154 ; Kirkman v. Patton, 19 Ala. 32 ; Mahoney v. O’Leary, 34 Ala. 97 ; Dow v. Whitman, 36 Ala. 604 .

11880–1880
Trustees of Watertown v. Cowen & Bagg green
nychanct · 1834
1 sentence

1852Newhouse et al. v. Miles, 9 Ala. Rep. 460 ; Watertown v. Connor, 4 Paige, 510 ; Story’s Eq.

11852–1852

Where else courts name it

CA 53 (1898–2026) IL 42 (1878–2026) PA 29 (1958–2025) NY 26 (1888–2023) FL 24 (1937–2026) MA 18 (1893–2024) TX 16 (1957–2025) OH 15 (1950–2025) GA 14 (1901–2017) CO 8 (1984–2026) MO 8 (1908–2021) DE 7 (2019–2024) WA 7 (1972–2019) MS 7 (1982–2021) LA 6 (1893–2018) NJ 6 (1958–2025) NC 6 (1923–2025) SC 6 (1927–2024) MI 6 (1876–2026) NM 6 (1974–2021) MD 6 (1967–1988) UT 6 (2002–2022) IA 5 (1883–2026) OR 5 (1908–1999) AL 5 (1852–2014) OK 5 (1903–2023) VA 5 (1959–2024) CT 4 (1989–2017) AR 4 (1922–1983) AK 4 (1996–2026) MN 4 (1960–2016) ME 3 (1988–2008) NV 3 (1970–2014) KY 3 (1966–2025) WV 3 (2010–2014) IN 3 (1996–2024) KS 3 (1995–2019) ND 2 (1912–1995) AZ 2 (1991–2018) ID 2 (1991–2012) WI 2 (1992–2012) TN 2 (2011–2012) HI 2 (1907–2016)

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