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.
5 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1945–2014 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Ex Parte United Service Stations, Inc.green1 sentence2014Stations, Inc., 628 So.2d 501, 504 (Ala.1993). ‘Principles of statutory construction instruct this Court to interpret the plain language of a statute to mean exactly what it says and to engage in judicial construction only if the language in the statute is ambiguous.’ Ex parte Pratt, 815 So.2d 532 , 535 (Ala.2001).” The plain language of former § 11-45-1.1, Ala.Code 1975 (and the similar corresponding provision in former § 11-80-11, Ala.Code 1975), does not support Tulley’s position. | 1 | 1 |
Jennifer Crawford v. State of Alabama.green1 sentence2014As such, the punishment provision found. in Ordinance No. O-514-10(d) authorizes a sentence that is greater than the sentence authorized by the state law: the Ordinance punishes the infraction as a violation while the State cannot punish the infraction at all.” (Tulley’s application for reh’g, p. 10.) In Crawford v. State, 100 So.3d 610, 614-15 (Ala.Crim.App.2011), this Court stated: “It is a well established principle of statutory interpretation that ‘[wjhere the meaning of the plain language of the statute is clear, it must be construed according to its plain language.’ Ex parte United Serv. | 1 | 1 |
Clark v. Stategreen1 sentence2000Considering the weight of the evidence against this appellant, it is unlikely that the possible prejudice was instrumental in the jury’s finding.” Clark v. State, 462 So.2d at 747 (Bowen, P.J., concurring). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Moulton v. State
neutral
2 sentences1973Moulton v. State, 88 Ala. 116 , 6 So. 758 , 6 L.R.A. 301 . 1945The permission allowed to wide latitude in cross examination does not permit an infraction of the principle stated above,” citing Moulton v. State 88 Ala. 116 , 6 So. 758 , 6 L.R.A. 301 . | 2 | 1945–1973 |
Ex Parte Pratt
green
1 sentence2014Stations, Inc., 628 So.2d 501, 504 (Ala.1993). ‘Principles of statutory construction instruct this Court to interpret the plain language of a statute to mean exactly what it says and to engage in judicial construction only if the language in the statute is ambiguous.’ Ex parte Pratt, 815 So.2d 532 , 535 (Ala.2001).” The plain language of former § 11-45-1.1, Ala.Code 1975 (and the similar corresponding provision in former § 11-80-11, Ala.Code 1975), does not support Tulley’s position. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Harmon v. State
green
2 sentences1975The opinion in the Mullins case, likewise, sets out other questions which would be improper cross examination of a character witness: “From the opinion in Harmon v. State, 22 Ala.App. 288 , 115 So. 67 , we quote the following: ‘After Mr. Mohr -had qualified and testified to the good character of defendant, the solicitor, over proper objection and exception, was allowed to ask the witness Mohr, on cross-examination: “Would you think a preacher who would leave his sick wife home on New Year’s night and go out to a woman’s house and stay with a woman, with a half pint of liquor, would have good c 1975The opinion in the Mullins case, likewise, sets out other questions which would be improper cross examination of a character witness: “From the opinion in Harmon v. State, 22 Ala.App. 288 , 115 So. 67 , we quote the following: ‘After Mr. Mohr -had qualified and testified to the good character of defendant, the solicitor, over proper objection and exception, was allowed to ask the witness Mohr, on cross-examination: “Would you think a preacher who would leave his sick wife home on New Year’s night and go out to a woman’s house and stay with a woman, with a half pint of liquor, would have good c | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Way v. State
green
2 sentences1945And see Way v. State 155 Ala. 52 , 46 So. 273 . 1945And see Way v. State 155 Ala. 52 , 46 So. 273 . | 1 | 1945–1945 |
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.