restriction doctrine in Alabama

2014See Piggly Wiggly No. 208, Inc. v. Dutton, 601 So.2d 907, 910-11 (Ala.1992); Fitts v. McGhee, 172 U.S. 516, 531-32 , 19 S.Ct. 269 , 43 L.Ed. 535 (1899). 7 Macon County Greyhound Park and its progeny stand for the proposition that a party may not litigate in advance or by separate proceeding the question of the lawfulness of an activity or property subject to prosecution by law-enforcement authorities. “[Ijnstead,” as we said in Macon County Greyhound Park, “the party aggrieved by such enforcement shall make his case in the prosecution of the criminal action.” 43 So.3d at 589 .

2014See Piggly Wiggly No. 208, Inc. v. Dutton, 601 So.2d 907, 910-11 (Ala.1992); Fitts v. McGhee, 172 U.S. 516, 531-32 , 19 S.Ct. 269 , 43 L.Ed. 535 (1899). 7 Macon County Greyhound Park and its progeny stand for the proposition that a party may not litigate in advance or by separate proceeding the question of the lawfulness of an activity or property subject to prosecution by law-enforcement authorities. “[Ijnstead,” as we said in Macon County Greyhound Park, “the party aggrieved by such enforcement shall make his case in the prosecution of the criminal action.” 43 So.3d at 589 .

2014See Piggly Wiggly No. 208, Inc. v. Dutton, 601 So.2d 907, 910-11 (Ala.1992); Fitts v. McGhee, 172 U.S. 516, 531-32 , 19 S.Ct. 269 , 43 L.Ed. 535 (1899). 7 Macon County Greyhound Park and its progeny stand for the proposition that a party may not litigate in advance or by separate proceeding the question of the lawfulness of an activity or property subject to prosecution by law-enforcement authorities. “[Ijnstead,” as we said in Macon County Greyhound Park, “the party aggrieved by such enforcement shall make his case in the prosecution of the criminal action.” 43 So.3d at 589 .

2013This, taken in combination with the fact that it is not the State, means there is no basis upon which the legislature could extend local governmental immunity to it. 20 In Home Indemnity Co. v. Anders, 459 So.2d 836 (Ala.1984), this Court rejected a constitutional challenge to § 11-93-2 based on § 13 of the 1901 Constitution (providing for a remedy for every injury).

1973Thus, Wigmore states 'that disclosure may be compelled if it ‘appears necessary in order to avoid the risk of false testimony or to secure useful testimony’ (8 Wigmore on Evidence (3d Ed.1940) § 2374, p. 756), and the United States Supreme Court in its latest opinion on the question declares that a limitation arises from the fundamental requirements of fairness where disclosure is ‘relevant and helpful to the defense of an accused, or is essential to a fair determination of a cause.’ Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 60-61 , 77 S.Ct. 623, 628 , 1 L.Ed.2d 639 .” Appellant-defendant was ent

1973Thus, Wigmore states 'that disclosure may be compelled if it ‘appears necessary in order to avoid the risk of false testimony or to secure useful testimony’ (8 Wigmore on Evidence (3d Ed.1940) § 2374, p. 756), and the United States Supreme Court in its latest opinion on the question declares that a limitation arises from the fundamental requirements of fairness where disclosure is ‘relevant and helpful to the defense of an accused, or is essential to a fair determination of a cause.’ Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 60-61 , 77 S.Ct. 623, 628 , 1 L.Ed.2d 639 .” Appellant-defendant was ent

1925As said by this court in Vinyard v. Republic Iron & Steel Co., 205 Ala. 269 , 87 So. 552 : “This means that, subject only to a restriction of the claim to an amount or value within the jurisdiction of the justice court, * * * the trial is had as though the suit originated in the circuit court; * * * and a new complaint or an amendment to the old, may be filed by the plaintiff, provided it does not exhibit an entire,, change of parties plaintiff or defendant, and does not show a departure from, or change in, the original form of action.” We think the amendment here allowed came within the rule

1925As said by this court in Vinyard v. Republic Iron & Steel Co., 205 Ala. 269 , 87 So. 552 : “This means that, subject only to a restriction of the claim to an amount or value within the jurisdiction of the justice court, * * * the trial is had as though the suit originated in the circuit court; * * * and a new complaint or an amendment to the old, may be filed by the plaintiff, provided it does not exhibit an entire,, change of parties plaintiff or defendant, and does not show a departure from, or change in, the original form of action.” We think the amendment here allowed came within the rule

1921This means that, subject only to a restriction of the claim to an amount or value within the jurisdiction of the justice court (Giddens v. Bolling, 92 Ala. 586 , 9 South. 274 ), the trial is had as though the suit originated in the circuit court (L. & N. R.