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 3 courts 2002–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ex Parte Allengreen2 sentences2016Ill Analysis Spencer asserts that the Court of Criminal Appeals’ decision' conflicts with Ex parte Allen, 825 So.2d 271 (Ala.2002), regarding the principle .that the mailbox rule applies, “to prisoner filings when a time deadline- is involved.” Specifically, Spencer contends that the repeal of § 13A-5-9.1 “created a time deadline for filing” and that the Court of Criminal Appeals’ order failed to recognize that fact. 2003In fact, the precise holding of Ex parte Allen states: “We hold that the mailbox rule does not apply to motions to amend Rule 32 petitions where the trial court has not established a deadline for filing the amendment.” Ex parte Allen, 825 So.2d at 273 (emphasis added). | 1 | 3 |
Allen v. Stategreen2 sentences2003A review of the Court of Criminal Appeals’ opinion in Allen v. State, 825 So.2d 264, 270 (Ala.Crim.App.2001), further supports my conclusion that the mailbox rule should be applied to this case. 2003Then, explaining why it had concluded that Allen’s Rule 32 amendment was not filed on the date he placed it in the prison mail system when, in prior cases, Rule 32 amendments had been subject to the mailbox rule, the court stated: “In both Miles and Talley [v. State, 802 So.2d 1106 (Ala.Crim.App.2001) ] the petitioners were faced with time deadlines, albeit imposed by the court rather than by a procedural rule or statute; thus, requiring the circuit courts in those cases to consider the amendments filed by the petitioners within the time imposed by the court was consistent with those cases cit | 1 | 3 |
N.H. v. Vickersgreen1 sentence2015See N.H. v. Vickers, 865 So.2d 452 (Ala.Civ.App.2003)(mailbox rule did not apply to prisoner’s filings in civil proceedings under civil procedure rules). | 1 | 1 |
O'ROURKE v. Stategreen2 sentences2002O'Rourke v. State, 782 S.W.2d 808, 809 (Mo.Ct.App.1990); Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.1989); Espinal v. State, 159 Misc.2d 1051 , 607 N.Y.S.2d 1008 (N.Y.Ct.Cl.1993). 2002O'Rourke v. State , 782 S.W.2d 808 , 809 (Mo.Ct.App. 1990); Carr v. State , 554 A.2d 778 , 779 (Del. 1989); Espinal v. State , 607 N.Y.S.2d 1008 (N.Y. | 1 | 1 |
Carr v. Stategreen2 sentences2002O'Rourke v. State, 782 S.W.2d 808, 809 (Mo.Ct.App.1990); Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.1989); Espinal v. State, 159 Misc.2d 1051 , 607 N.Y.S.2d 1008 (N.Y.Ct.Cl.1993). 2002O'Rourke v. State , 782 S.W.2d 808 , 809 (Mo.Ct.App. 1990); Carr v. State , 554 A.2d 778 , 779 (Del. 1989); Espinal v. State , 607 N.Y.S.2d 1008 (N.Y. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Houston v. Lack
green
2 sentences2002We granted this petition for the writ of certiorari to address one issue: Whether our caselaw that has adopted the holding enunciated in Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988), that a notice of appeal by an incarcerated pro se appellant is considered "filed" when it is given to prison officials and not when it is received by the court clerk (hereinafter generally referred to as "the mailbox rule"), should be extended to *Page 272 include the filing of motions to amend Rule 32, Ala.R.Crim.P., petitions that have no deadline for filing other than that they must be filed before the entry of a fina 2002In applying the mailbox rule to initial filings of Rule 32 petitions and time-sensitive amendments to such petitions, Alabama courts have been cognizant of the policy concerns outlined by the United States Supreme Court in Houston v. Lack , supra . | 3 | 2002–2016 |
Davis v. Alabama Medicaid Agency
green
1 sentence2023Diversicare made no such factual showing or claim in the circuit court, however. 9 CL-2022-0714 Diversicare filed a response to the Agency's amended motion to dismiss, arguing that Ala. Code 1975, § 41-22-17(e), "must be interpreted in conjunction with" Ala. Code 1975, § 41-22-20(d), which states that " 'if a rehearing is requested under Section 41-22-17,' " the notice of appeal shall be filed " 'within 30 days after the receipt of the notice of or other service of the decision of the agency thereon.' " According to Diversicare, "a rehearing was requested by [Diversicare], and within 30 days o | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Talley v. State
green
1 sentence2003Then, explaining why it had concluded that Allen’s Rule 32 amendment was not filed on the date he placed it in the prison mail system when, in prior cases, Rule 32 amendments had been subject to the mailbox rule, the court stated: “In both Miles and Talley [v. State, 802 So.2d 1106 (Ala.Crim.App.2001) ] the petitioners were faced with time deadlines, albeit imposed by the court rather than by a procedural rule or statute; thus, requiring the circuit courts in those cases to consider the amendments filed by the petitioners within the time imposed by the court was consistent with those cases cit | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Espinal v. State
neutral
2 sentences2002O'Rourke v. State, 782 S.W.2d 808, 809 (Mo.Ct.App.1990); Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.1989); Espinal v. State, 159 Misc.2d 1051 , 607 N.Y.S.2d 1008 (N.Y.Ct.Cl.1993). 2002O'Rourke v. State , 782 S.W.2d 808 , 809 (Mo.Ct.App. 1990); Carr v. State , 554 A.2d 778 , 779 (Del. 1989); Espinal v. State , 607 N.Y.S.2d 1008 (N.Y. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.