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 1989–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Harris v. Reedgreen2 sentences2006See Whitt v. State, 827 So.2d 869 (Ala.Crim.App.2001). . "[AJ procedural default does not bar consideration of a federal claim on either direct or habeas review unless the last state court rendering a judgment in the case ' "clearly and expressly” ’ states that its judgment rests on a state procedural bar.” Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 263 , 109 S.Ct. 1038 , 103 L.Ed.2d 308 (1989). 2006See Whitt v. State, 827 So.2d 869 (Ala.Crim.App.2001). . "[AJ procedural default does not bar consideration of a federal claim on either direct or habeas review unless the last state court rendering a judgment in the case ' "clearly and expressly” ’ states that its judgment rests on a state procedural bar.” Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 263 , 109 S.Ct. 1038 , 103 L.Ed.2d 308 (1989). | 1 | 2 |
Whitt v. Stategreen2 sentences2006See Whitt v. State, 827 So.2d 869 (Ala.Crim.App.2001). . "[AJ procedural default does not bar consideration of a federal claim on either direct or habeas review unless the last state court rendering a judgment in the case ' "clearly and expressly” ’ states that its judgment rests on a state procedural bar.” Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 263 , 109 S.Ct. 1038 , 103 L.Ed.2d 308 (1989). 2006See Whitt v. State, 827 So.2d 869 (Ala.Crim.App.2001). [7] "[A] procedural default does not bar consideration of a federal claim on either direct or habeas review unless the last state court rendering a judgment in the case `"clearly and expressly"' states that its judgment rests on a state procedural bar." Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 263 , 109 S.Ct. 1038 , 103 L.Ed.2d 308 (1989). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Bobo
green
2 sentences2017For example, in People v. Burnette , 775 P.2d 583 (Colo. 1989), and State v. Bobo , 814 S.W.2d 353 (Tenn. 1991), both cited by the Hospital, the state's applicable rule of criminal procedure mandated that "[a]n alternate juror who does not replace a regular juror shall be discharged when the jury retires to consider its verdict." Rule 18.4(g)(1), Ala. R. 2012For example, in People v. Burnette, 775 P.2d 583 (Colo.1989), and State v. Bobo, 814 S.W.2d 353 (Tenn.1991), both cited by the Hospital, the state’s applicable rule of criminal procedure mandated that ‘[a]n alternate juror who does not replace a regular juror shall be discharged when the jury retires to consider its verdict.’ Rule 18.4(g)(1), Ala. R.Crim. | 3 | 2005–2017 |
People v. Burnette
green
2 sentences2017For example, in People v. Burnette , 775 P.2d 583 (Colo. 1989), and State v. Bobo , 814 S.W.2d 353 (Tenn. 1991), both cited by the Hospital, the state's applicable rule of criminal procedure mandated that "[a]n alternate juror who does not replace a regular juror shall be discharged when the jury retires to consider its verdict." Rule 18.4(g)(1), Ala. R. 2012For example, in People v. Burnette, 775 P.2d 583 (Colo.1989), and State v. Bobo, 814 S.W.2d 353 (Tenn.1991), both cited by the Hospital, the state’s applicable rule of criminal procedure mandated that ‘[a]n alternate juror who does not replace a regular juror shall be discharged when the jury retires to consider its verdict.’ Rule 18.4(g)(1), Ala. R.Crim. | 3 | 2005–2017 |
Caldwell v. Mississippi
green
2 sentences1989There, the United States Supreme Court stated: *Page 1158 "[A] procedural default does not bar consideration of a federal claim on either direct or habeas review unless the last state court rendering a judgment in the case ' "clearly and expressly" ' states that its judgment rests on a state procedural bar." Harris , 109 S.Ct. at 1043 , citing Caldwell v. Mississippi , 472 U.S. 320 , 327 , 105 S.Ct. 2633 , 2638 , 86 L.Ed.2d 231 (1985), quoting Michigan v. Long , 463 U.S. 1032 , 103 S.Ct. 3469 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1983). 1989There, the United States Supreme Court stated: *Page 1158 "[A] procedural default does not bar consideration of a federal claim on either direct or habeas review unless the last state court rendering a judgment in the case ' "clearly and expressly" ' states that its judgment rests on a state procedural bar." Harris , 109 S.Ct. at 1043 , citing Caldwell v. Mississippi , 472 U.S. 320 , 327 , 105 S.Ct. 2633 , 2638 , 86 L.Ed.2d 231 (1985), quoting Michigan v. Long , 463 U.S. 1032 , 103 S.Ct. 3469 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1983). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Michigan v. Long
green
2 sentences1989There, the United States Supreme Court stated: *Page 1158 "[A] procedural default does not bar consideration of a federal claim on either direct or habeas review unless the last state court rendering a judgment in the case ' "clearly and expressly" ' states that its judgment rests on a state procedural bar." Harris , 109 S.Ct. at 1043 , citing Caldwell v. Mississippi , 472 U.S. 320 , 327 , 105 S.Ct. 2633 , 2638 , 86 L.Ed.2d 231 (1985), quoting Michigan v. Long , 463 U.S. 1032 , 103 S.Ct. 3469 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1983). 1989There, the United States Supreme Court stated: *Page 1158 "[A] procedural default does not bar consideration of a federal claim on either direct or habeas review unless the last state court rendering a judgment in the case ' "clearly and expressly" ' states that its judgment rests on a state procedural bar." Harris , 109 S.Ct. at 1043 , citing Caldwell v. Mississippi , 472 U.S. 320 , 327 , 105 S.Ct. 2633 , 2638 , 86 L.Ed.2d 231 (1985), quoting Michigan v. Long , 463 U.S. 1032 , 103 S.Ct. 3469 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1983). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.