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 1994–2005 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 Ingramgreen1 sentence2005In his initial brief, L.J.K.’s entire argument in this regard is as follows: “[L.J.K.] was denied the right to an evidentiary hearing on his motion for new trial due to the trial court’s misplaced reliance on [Ex parte] Jackson[, 598 So.2d 895, 897 (Ala.1992), overruled on other grounds, Ex parte Ingram, 675 So.2d 863, 865 (Ala.1996)]. | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Jacksonred1 sentence2005In his initial brief, L.J.K.’s entire argument in this regard is as follows: “[L.J.K.] was denied the right to an evidentiary hearing on his motion for new trial due to the trial court’s misplaced reliance on [Ex parte] Jackson[, 598 So.2d 895, 897 (Ala.1992), overruled on other grounds, Ex parte Ingram, 675 So.2d 863, 865 (Ala.1996)]. | 1 | 1 |
Arnett v. Kennedygreen2 sentences2000Id. at 137 , 94 S.Ct. 1633 . 2000Id. at 137. | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Clisbygreen1 sentence1998See also Ex parte Clisby, 501 So.2d 483, 487 (Ala.1986) ("[m]ere conclusions of law with regard to the merits of certain issues not raised on direct appeal are not sufficient to invoke the right to an evidentiary hearing on the question of counsel's failure to raise those issues"). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Harold S. Cross v. United States
green
2 sentences1995Appellants place great reliance on McKissick v. United States, 379 F.2d 754 (5th Cir.1967) and Cross v. United States, 117 U.S.App.D.C. 56 , 325 F.2d 629 (1963). 1995Appellants place great reliance on McKissick v. United States, 379 F.2d 754 (5th Cir.1967) and Cross v. United States, 117 U.S.App.D.C. 56 , 325 F.2d 629 (1963). | 2 | 1994–1995 |
Bobby Jean McKissick v. United States
green
2 sentences1995Appellants place great reliance on McKissick v. United States, 379 F.2d 754 (5th Cir.1967) and Cross v. United States, 117 U.S.App.D.C. 56 , 325 F.2d 629 (1963). 1994Appellants place great reliance on McKissick v. United States , 379 F.2d 754 (5th Cir. 1967) and Cross v. United States , 117 U.S.App.D.C. 56 , 325 F.2d 629 (1963). | 2 | 1994–1995 |
Underwood v. State
red
1 sentence2005Pursuant to Underwood v. State, 879 So.2d 611 (Ala.Crim.App.2003); Edgar v. State, 646 So.2d 683 (Ala.1994); as well as Ex parte Boatwright, 471 So.2d 1257 (Ala.1985), [L.J.K.’s] motions for new trial entitle him to an evidentiary hearing. [L.J.K.’s] uncontested affidavits (C. 260-270) clearly establish that [L.J.K’s] request for an evidentiary hearing is meritorious.” (L.J.K’s brief at pp. 21-22.) Although L.J.K. cites legal authority in support of this claim, he fails to provide any argument as to how the authority he cites supports his claim that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Edgar v. State
green
1 sentence2005Pursuant to Underwood v. State, 879 So.2d 611 (Ala.Crim.App.2003); Edgar v. State, 646 So.2d 683 (Ala.1994); as well as Ex parte Boatwright, 471 So.2d 1257 (Ala.1985), [L.J.K.’s] motions for new trial entitle him to an evidentiary hearing. [L.J.K.’s] uncontested affidavits (C. 260-270) clearly establish that [L.J.K’s] request for an evidentiary hearing is meritorious.” (L.J.K’s brief at pp. 21-22.) Although L.J.K. cites legal authority in support of this claim, he fails to provide any argument as to how the authority he cites supports his claim that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Ex Parte Boatwright
green
1 sentence2005Pursuant to Underwood v. State, 879 So.2d 611 (Ala.Crim.App.2003); Edgar v. State, 646 So.2d 683 (Ala.1994); as well as Ex parte Boatwright, 471 So.2d 1257 (Ala.1985), [L.J.K.’s] motions for new trial entitle him to an evidentiary hearing. [L.J.K.’s] uncontested affidavits (C. 260-270) clearly establish that [L.J.K’s] request for an evidentiary hearing is meritorious.” (L.J.K’s brief at pp. 21-22.) Although L.J.K. cites legal authority in support of this claim, he fails to provide any argument as to how the authority he cites supports his claim that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.