cumulative error in Alabama

43 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2022 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.

Followed or applied (17)

Case	Followed	Cited
Emmaline Williams v. Odie Washington, Wardengreen ca7 · 1995 · cited in 13 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2005–2017 2 sentences 2017See Williams v. Washington , 59 F.3d 673 , 682 (7th Cir. 1995) ("In making this showing, a petitioner may demonstrate that the cumulative effect of counsel's individual acts or omissions was substantial enough to meet Strickland 's test"); but see Scott v. Jones , 915 F.2d 1188 , 1191 (8th Cir. 1990) ("cumulative error does not call for habeas relief, as each habeas claim must stand or fall on its own").' "See also Holland v. State , 250 Ga.App. 24 , 28, 550 S.E.2d 433 , 437 (2001) ('Because the so-called cumulative error doctrine is inapplicable, each claim of inadequacy must be examined inde 2017See Williams v. Washington , 59 F.3d 673 , 682 (7th Cir. 1995) ("In making this showing, a petitioner may demonstrate that the cumulative effect of counsel's individual acts or omissions was substantial enough to meet Strickland 's test"); but see Scott v. Jones , 915 F.2d 1188 , 1191 (8th Cir. 1990) ("cumulative error does not call for habeas relief, as each habeas claim must stand or fall on its own").' "See also Holland v. State , 250 Ga.App. 24 , 28, 550 S.E.2d 433 , 437 (2001) ('Because the so-called cumulative error doctrine is inapplicable, each claim of inadequacy must be examined inde	13	13
Richard Anthony Hoots v. Harry Allsbrook Attorney General of the State of North Carolina, Rufus L. Edmistengreen ca4 · 1986 · cited in 13 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2005–2017 2 sentences 2017See, e.g. , Hoots v. Allsbrook , 785 F.2d 1214 , 1219 (4th Cir. 1986) (considering ineffective assistance claims individually rather than considering their cumulative impact.)'). 2017See, e.g. , Hoots v. Allsbrook , 785 F.2d 1214 , 1219 (4th Cir. 1986) (considering ineffective assistance claims individually rather than considering their cumulative impact.)').	13	13
Carl v. Stategreen gactapp · 1998 · cited in 13 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2005–2017 2 sentences 2017See Williams v. Washington , 59 F.3d 673 , 682 (7th Cir. 1995) ("In making this showing, a petitioner may demonstrate that the cumulative effect of counsel's individual acts or omissions was substantial enough to meet Strickland 's test"); but see Scott v. Jones , 915 F.2d 1188 , 1191 (8th Cir. 1990) ("cumulative error does not call for habeas relief, as each habeas claim must stand or fall on its own").' "See also Holland v. State , 250 Ga.App. 24 , 28, 550 S.E.2d 433 , 437 (2001) ('Because the so-called cumulative error doctrine is inapplicable, each claim of inadequacy must be examined inde 2017See Williams v. Washington , 59 F.3d 673 , 682 (7th Cir. 1995) ("In making this showing, a petitioner may demonstrate that the cumulative effect of counsel's individual acts or omissions was substantial enough to meet Strickland 's test"); but see Scott v. Jones , 915 F.2d 1188 , 1191 (8th Cir. 1990) ("cumulative error does not call for habeas relief, as each habeas claim must stand or fall on its own").' "See also Holland v. State , 250 Ga.App. 24 , 28, 550 S.E.2d 433 , 437 (2001) ('Because the so-called cumulative error doctrine is inapplicable, each claim of inadequacy must be examined inde	9	13
David Lee Fisher v. Ronald J. Angelone, Director, Virginia Department of Correctionsgreen ca4 · 1998 · cited in 13 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2005–2017 2 sentences 2017See Williams v. Washington , 59 F.3d 673 , 682 (7th Cir. 1995) ("In making this showing, a petitioner may demonstrate that the cumulative effect of counsel's individual acts or omissions was substantial enough to meet Strickland 's test"); but see Scott v. Jones , 915 F.2d 1188 , 1191 (8th Cir. 1990) ("cumulative error does not call for habeas relief, as each habeas claim must stand or fall on its own").' "See also Holland v. State , 250 Ga.App. 24 , 28, 550 S.E.2d 433 , 437 (2001) ('Because the so-called cumulative error doctrine is inapplicable, each claim of inadequacy must be examined inde 2017See Williams v. Washington , 59 F.3d 673 , 682 (7th Cir. 1995) ("In making this showing, a petitioner may demonstrate that the cumulative effect of counsel's individual acts or omissions was substantial enough to meet Strickland 's test"); but see Scott v. Jones , 915 F.2d 1188 , 1191 (8th Cir. 1990) ("cumulative error does not call for habeas relief, as each habeas claim must stand or fall on its own").' "See also Holland v. State , 250 Ga.App. 24 , 28, 550 S.E.2d 433 , 437 (2001) ('Because the so-called cumulative error doctrine is inapplicable, each claim of inadequacy must be examined inde	6	13
Lewis v. Stategreen alacrimapp · 2007 · cited in 5 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2010–2014 2 sentences 2014P.).” Brown v. State, 56 So.3d 729, 743 (Ala.Crim.App.2009) (quoting Sharifi v. State, 993 So.2d 907, 946-47 (Ala.Crim.App.2008), quoting in turn Lewis v. State, 24 So.3d 480, 538 (Ala.Crim.App.2006)). 2010“The Alabama Supreme Court has set forth the cumulative-error rule as follows: ‘[W]hile, under the facts of a particular case, no single error among multiple errors may be sufficiently prejudicial to require reversal under Rule 45, if the accumulated errors have “probably injuriously affected substantial rights of the parties,” then the cumulative effect of the errors may require reversal.’ Ex parte Woods, 789 So.2d 941 , 942-43 n. 1 (Ala.2001) (quoting Rule 45, Ala.R.App.P.).” Lewis v. State, 24 So.3d 480, 538 (Ala.Crim.App.2006), affirmed, 24 So.3d 540 (Ala.2009), cert. denied, Lewis v. Alab	5	5
Sharifi v. Stategreen alacrimapp · 2008 · cited in 3 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2010–2014 2 sentences 2014P.).” Brown v. State, 56 So.3d 729, 743 (Ala.Crim.App.2009) (quoting Sharifi v. State, 993 So.2d 907, 946-47 (Ala.Crim.App.2008), quoting in turn Lewis v. State, 24 So.3d 480, 538 (Ala.Crim.App.2006)). 2010Applying this standard to Lewis’s allegation of cumulative error, we have scrupulously reviewed the record and find no evidence that the cumulative effect of any of the individually nonreversible errors in this case affected Lewis’s substantial rights at trial.’ “Lewis v. State, [ 24 So.3d 480, 538 (Ala.Crim.App.2006) ].” Sharifi v. State, 993 So.2d 907, 946-47 (Ala.Crim.App.2008).	3	3
United States v. Aurora Canales and Elia Garciagreen ca5 · 1984 · cited in 3 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001 2 sentences 2001See Blue v. State , 246 Ala. 73 , 80 , 19 So.2d 11 , 16-17 (1944); Jetton v. State , 435 So.2d 167 (Ala.Crim.App. 1983)."); McGriff v. State , [Ms. 97-0179, September 29, 2000] ___ So.2d ___, ___ (Ala.Crim.App. 2000) ("Because we find no error in the specific instances alleged by the appellant, we find no cumulative error." (Quoting earlier cases; emphasis added.)); United States v. Rivera , 900 F.2d 1462 , 1470 (10th Cir. 1990) ("A cumulative-error analysis merely aggregates all the errors that individually have been found to be harmless, and therefore not reversible, and it analyzes whether 2001See Blue v. State , 246 Ala. 73 , 80 , 19 So.2d 11 , 16-17 (1944); Jetton v. State , 435 So.2d 167 (Ala.Crim.App. 1983)."); McGriff v. State , [Ms. 97-0179, September 29, 2000] ___ So.2d ___, ___ (Ala.Crim.App. 2000) ("Because we find no error in the specific instances alleged by the appellant, we find no cumulative error." (Quoting earlier cases.) (Emphasis added.)); United States v. Rivera , 900 F.2d 1462 , 1470 (10th Cir. 1990) ("A cumulative-error analysis merely aggregates all the errors that individually have been found to be harmless, and therefore not reversible, and it analyzes whethe	3	3
United States v. Luis Anthony Riveragreen ca10 · 1990 · cited in 3 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001 2 sentences 2001See Blue v. State , 246 Ala. 73 , 80 , 19 So.2d 11 , 16-17 (1944); Jetton v. State , 435 So.2d 167 (Ala.Crim.App. 1983)."); McGriff v. State , [Ms. 97-0179, September 29, 2000] ___ So.2d ___, ___ (Ala.Crim.App. 2000) ("Because we find no error in the specific instances alleged by the appellant, we find no cumulative error." (Quoting earlier cases; emphasis added.)); United States v. Rivera , 900 F.2d 1462 , 1470 (10th Cir. 1990) ("A cumulative-error analysis merely aggregates all the errors that individually have been found to be harmless, and therefore not reversible, and it analyzes whether 2001See Blue v. State , 246 Ala. 73 , 80 , 19 So.2d 11 , 16-17 (1944); Jetton v. State , 435 So.2d 167 (Ala.Crim.App. 1983)."); McGriff v. State , [Ms. 97-0179, September 29, 2000] ___ So.2d ___, ___ (Ala.Crim.App. 2000) ("Because we find no error in the specific instances alleged by the appellant, we find no cumulative error." (Quoting earlier cases.) (Emphasis added.)); United States v. Rivera , 900 F.2d 1462 , 1470 (10th Cir. 1990) ("A cumulative-error analysis merely aggregates all the errors that individually have been found to be harmless, and therefore not reversible, and it analyzes whethe	3	3
Blue v. Stategreen ala · 1944 · cited in 3 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001 2 sentences 2001See Blue v. State , 246 Ala. 73 , 80 , 19 So.2d 11 , 16-17 (1944); Jetton v. State , 435 So.2d 167 (Ala.Crim.App. 1983)."); McGriff v. State , [Ms. 97-0179, September 29, 2000] ___ So.2d ___, ___ (Ala.Crim.App. 2000) ("Because we find no error in the specific instances alleged by the appellant, we find no cumulative error." (Quoting earlier cases; emphasis added.)); United States v. Rivera , 900 F.2d 1462 , 1470 (10th Cir. 1990) ("A cumulative-error analysis merely aggregates all the errors that individually have been found to be harmless, and therefore not reversible, and it analyzes whether 2001See Blue v. State , 246 Ala. 73 , 80 , 19 So.2d 11 , 16-17 (1944); Jetton v. State , 435 So.2d 167 (Ala.Crim.App. 1983)."); McGriff v. State , [Ms. 97-0179, September 29, 2000] ___ So.2d ___, ___ (Ala.Crim.App. 2000) ("Because we find no error in the specific instances alleged by the appellant, we find no cumulative error." (Quoting earlier cases; emphasis added.)); United States v. Rivera , 900 F.2d 1462 , 1470 (10th Cir. 1990) ("A cumulative-error analysis merely aggregates all the errors that individually have been found to be harmless, and therefore not reversible, and it analyzes whether	3	3
Ex Parte Woodsgreen ala · 2001 · cited in 23 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2001–2018 2 sentences 2014Finally, Kirksey argues that the cumulative effect of the errors committed at trial requires reversal of his conviction. “• ‘ “The Alabama Supreme Court has set forth the cumulative-error rule as follows: ‘[Wjhile, under the facts of a particular case, no single error among multiple errors may be sufficiently prejudicial to require reversal under Rule 45, if the accumulated errors have “probably injuriously affected substantial rights of the parties,” then the cumulative effect of the errors may require reversal.’ Ex parte Woods, 789 So.2d 941 , 942-43 n. 1 (Ala.2001)(quoting Rule 45, Ala. R.A 2014This Court has recently explained: “ ‘ “ ‘The Alabama Supreme Court has set forth the cumulative-error rule as follows: “[W]hile, under the facts of a particular case, no single error .among multiple errors may be sufficiently prejudicial to re- • quire reversal under Rule 45, if the accumulated errors have ‘probably injuriously affected substantial rights of the parties,’ then , the cumulative effect of the errors may require reversal.” Ex parte Woods, 789 So.2d 941 , 942-43 n. 1 (Ala. 2001) (quoting Rule 45, Ala. R.App.	2	23
Brown v. Stategreen alacrimapp · 2009 · cited in 2 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2010–2014 2 sentences 2014P.).” Brown v. State, 56 So.3d 729, 743 (Ala.Crim.App.2009) (quoting Sharifi v. State, 993 So.2d 907, 946-47 (Ala.Crim.App.2008), quoting in turn Lewis v. State, 24 So.3d 480, 538 (Ala.Crim.App.2006)). 2010Applying this standard to Lewis’s allegation of cumulative error, we have scrupulously reviewed the record and find no evidence that the cumulative effect of any of the individually nonreversible errors in this case affected Lewis's substantial rights at trial.” ’ “Sharifi v. State, 993 So.2d 907, 946-47 (Ala.Crim.App.2008) (quoting Lewis v. State, 24 So.3d 480, 538 (Ala.Crim.App.2006)).” Brown v. State, 56 So.3d 729, 743 (Ala.Crim.App.2009) In the present case, when we review the record and the errors previously discussed, there is no indication that they affected Morris’s substantial rights	2	2
Wiggins v. Stategreen alacrimapp · 2014 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022 1 sentence 2022See, e.g., Wiggins v. State, 193 So. 3d 765, 813 (Ala. Crim.	1	1
Garcia v. Stategreen nd · 2004 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 1 sentence 2014As the Supreme Court of North Dakota noted in Garcia v. State, 678 N.W.2d 568, 578 (N.D.2004): “‘Garcia argues that even if trial counsel’s individual acts or-omissions are insufficient' to establish he was prejudiced, the cumulative effect was substantial enough to meet Strickland’s test.	1	1
Moody v. Stategreen alacrimapp · 2011 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 1 sentence 2013See also Yeomans v. State, [Ms. CR-10-0095, March 29, 2013] — So.3d —, — (Ala.Crim.App.2013) (relying on Taylor and holding that “[w]hen considering whether the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were sufficiently pleaded, the circuit court correctly considered each claim individually”); Washington v. State, 95 So.3d 26, 58 (Ala.Crim.App.2012) (same); Jackson v. State, 133 So.3d 420, 428 (Ala.Crim.App.2012) (“The circuit court correctly considered Jackson’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims individually.”); and Moody v. State, 95 So.3d 827, 855 (Ala.Crim.App.2011) (because “all	1	1
Washington v. Stategreen alacrimapp · 2012 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 1 sentence 2013See also Yeomans v. State, [Ms. CR-10-0095, March 29, 2013] — So.3d —, — (Ala.Crim.App.2013) (relying on Taylor and holding that “[w]hen considering whether the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were sufficiently pleaded, the circuit court correctly considered each claim individually”); Washington v. State, 95 So.3d 26, 58 (Ala.Crim.App.2012) (same); Jackson v. State, 133 So.3d 420, 428 (Ala.Crim.App.2012) (“The circuit court correctly considered Jackson’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims individually.”); and Moody v. State, 95 So.3d 827, 855 (Ala.Crim.App.2011) (because “all	1	1
Shonelle Andre Jackson v. State of Alabama.green alacrimapp · 2009 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 1 sentence 2013See also Yeomans v. State, [Ms. CR-10-0095, March 29, 2013] — So.3d —, — (Ala.Crim.App.2013) (relying on Taylor and holding that “[w]hen considering whether the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were sufficiently pleaded, the circuit court correctly considered each claim individually”); Washington v. State, 95 So.3d 26, 58 (Ala.Crim.App.2012) (same); Jackson v. State, 133 So.3d 420, 428 (Ala.Crim.App.2012) (“The circuit court correctly considered Jackson’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims individually.”); and Moody v. State, 95 So.3d 827, 855 (Ala.Crim.App.2011) (because “all	1	1
Ex Parte Centobiegreen ala · 2003 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 1 sentence 2005See also Ex parte Centobie, 861 So.2d 1145 (Ala.2003)(on rehearing ex mero motu); Ex parte Bryant, 951 So.2d 724 (Ala.2002).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (2)

Case	Negative	Cited
Holland v. Statered gactapp · 2001 · cited in 13 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2005–2017 2 sentences 2017See Williams v. Washington , 59 F.3d 673 , 682 (7th Cir. 1995) ("In making this showing, a petitioner may demonstrate that the cumulative effect of counsel's individual acts or omissions was substantial enough to meet Strickland 's test"); but see Scott v. Jones , 915 F.2d 1188 , 1191 (8th Cir. 1990) ("cumulative error does not call for habeas relief, as each habeas claim must stand or fall on its own").' "See also Holland v. State , 250 Ga.App. 24 , 28, 550 S.E.2d 433 , 437 (2001) ('Because the so-called cumulative error doctrine is inapplicable, each claim of inadequacy must be examined inde 2017See Williams v. Washington , 59 F.3d 673 , 682 (7th Cir. 1995) ("In making this showing, a petitioner may demonstrate that the cumulative effect of counsel's individual acts or omissions was substantial enough to meet Strickland 's test"); but see Scott v. Jones , 915 F.2d 1188 , 1191 (8th Cir. 1990) ("cumulative error does not call for habeas relief, as each habeas claim must stand or fall on its own").' "See also Holland v. State , 250 Ga.App. 24 , 28, 550 S.E.2d 433 , 437 (2001) ('Because the so-called cumulative error doctrine is inapplicable, each claim of inadequacy must be examined inde	13	13
Arlester E. Scott v. Jim Jones and William L. Webstergreen ca8 · 1990 · cited in 13 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2005–2017 2 sentences 2017See Williams v. Washington , 59 F.3d 673 , 682 (7th Cir. 1995) ("In making this showing, a petitioner may demonstrate that the cumulative effect of counsel's individual acts or omissions was substantial enough to meet Strickland 's test"); but see Scott v. Jones , 915 F.2d 1188 , 1191 (8th Cir. 1990) ("cumulative error does not call for habeas relief, as each habeas claim must stand or fall on its own").' "See also Holland v. State , 250 Ga.App. 24 , 28, 550 S.E.2d 433 , 437 (2001) ('Because the so-called cumulative error doctrine is inapplicable, each claim of inadequacy must be examined inde 2017See Williams v. Washington , 59 F.3d 673 , 682 (7th Cir. 1995) ("In making this showing, a petitioner may demonstrate that the cumulative effect of counsel's individual acts or omissions was substantial enough to meet Strickland 's test"); but see Scott v. Jones , 915 F.2d 1188 , 1191 (8th Cir. 1990) ("cumulative error does not call for habeas relief, as each habeas claim must stand or fall on its own").' "See also Holland v. State , 250 Ga.App. 24 , 28, 550 S.E.2d 433 , 437 (2001) ('Because the so-called cumulative error doctrine is inapplicable, each claim of inadequacy must be examined inde	13	13

Also cited on this issue (8)

Case	Cited	Years
Strickland v. Washington green scotus · 1984 2 sentences 2017See Williams v. Washington , 59 F.3d 673 , 682 (7th Cir. 1995) ("In making this showing, a petitioner may demonstrate that the cumulative effect of counsel's individual acts or omissions was substantial enough to meet Strickland 's test"); but see Scott v. Jones , 915 F.2d 1188 , 1191 (8th Cir. 1990) ("cumulative error does not call for habeas relief, as each habeas claim must stand or fall on its own").' "See also Holland v. State , 250 Ga.App. 24 , 28, 550 S.E.2d 433 , 437 (2001) ('Because the so-called cumulative error doctrine is inapplicable, each claim of inadequacy must be examined inde 2017See Williams v. Washington , 59 F.3d 673 , 682 (7th Cir. 1995) ("In making this showing, a petitioner may demonstrate that the cumulative effect of counsel's individual acts or omissions was substantial enough to meet Strickland 's test"); but see Scott v. Jones , 915 F.2d 1188 , 1191 (8th Cir. 1990) ("cumulative error does not call for habeas relief, as each habeas claim must stand or fall on its own").' "See also Holland v. State , 250 Ga.App. 24 , 28, 550 S.E.2d 433 , 437 (2001) ('Because the so-called cumulative error doctrine is inapplicable, each claim of inadequacy must be examined inde	13	2005–2017
Jetton v. State green alacrimapp · 1983 2 sentences 2001See Blue v. State , 246 Ala. 73 , 80 , 19 So.2d 11 , 16-17 (1944); Jetton v. State , 435 So.2d 167 (Ala.Crim.App. 1983)."); McGriff v. State , [Ms. 97-0179, September 29, 2000] ___ So.2d ___, ___ (Ala.Crim.App. 2000) ("Because we find no error in the specific instances alleged by the appellant, we find no cumulative error." (Quoting earlier cases; emphasis added.)); United States v. Rivera , 900 F.2d 1462 , 1470 (10th Cir. 1990) ("A cumulative-error analysis merely aggregates all the errors that individually have been found to be harmless, and therefore not reversible, and it analyzes whether 2001See Blue v. State , 246 Ala. 73 , 80 , 19 So.2d 11 , 16-17 (1944); Jetton v. State , 435 So.2d 167 (Ala.Crim.App. 1983)."); McGriff v. State , [Ms. 97-0179, September 29, 2000] ___ So.2d ___, ___ (Ala.Crim.App. 2000) ("Because we find no error in the specific instances alleged by the appellant, we find no cumulative error." (Quoting earlier cases.) (Emphasis added.)); United States v. Rivera , 900 F.2d 1462 , 1470 (10th Cir. 1990) ("A cumulative-error analysis merely aggregates all the errors that individually have been found to be harmless, and therefore not reversible, and it analyzes whethe	3	2001–2001
Brooks v. State green alacrimapp · 2005 1 sentence 2014(Whited’s brief, p. 58.) Whited contends that .the. facts of his case should “serve as the vehicle for the express adoption by this Court of the cumulative error doctrine as applicable in ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims.” (Whited’s brief, p. 58.) 'In Brooks v. State, 929 So.2d 491 (Ala. Crim.App.2005), this Court addressed the application of the cumulative-error doctrine in ineffective-assistance claims: “Other states and federal courts are not in agreement as to whether the ‘cumulative effect’ analysis applies to Strickland claims.	1	2014–2014
Cage v. Louisiana green scotus · 1990 2 sentences 2011Indeed, Wilkerson concedes in his brief on appeal that the use of the term “substantial doubt” in jury instructions does not, by itself, rise to the level of error in Cage v. Louisiana, 498 U.S. 39 , 111 S.Ct. 328 , 112 L.Ed.2d 339 (1990), and argues only that this issue should be considered in a cumulative-error analysis. 2011Indeed, Wilkerson concedes in his brief on appeal that the use of the term “substantial doubt” in jury instructions does not, by itself, rise to the level of error in Cage v. Louisiana, 498 U.S. 39 , 111 S.Ct. 328 , 112 L.Ed.2d 339 (1990), and argues only that this issue should be considered in a cumulative-error analysis.	1	2011–2011
Ex Parte Lewis green ala · 2009 1 sentence 2010“The Alabama Supreme Court has set forth the cumulative-error rule as follows: ‘[W]hile, under the facts of a particular case, no single error among multiple errors may be sufficiently prejudicial to require reversal under Rule 45, if the accumulated errors have “probably injuriously affected substantial rights of the parties,” then the cumulative effect of the errors may require reversal.’ Ex parte Woods, 789 So.2d 941 , 942-43 n. 1 (Ala.2001) (quoting Rule 45, Ala.R.App.P.).” Lewis v. State, 24 So.3d 480, 538 (Ala.Crim.App.2006), affirmed, 24 So.3d 540 (Ala.2009), cert. denied, Lewis v. Alab	1	2010–2010
Ex Parte Bryant green ala · 2002 1 sentence 2005See also Ex parte Centobie, 861 So.2d 1145 (Ala.2003)(on rehearing ex mero motu); Ex parte Bryant, 951 So.2d 724 (Ala.2002).	1	2005–2005
Centobie v. State green alacrimapp · 2001 1 sentence 2003Centobie v. State , [Ms. CR-98-2056, August 31, 2001] 861 So.2d 1111 , 1143-44 (Ala.Crim.App. 2001).	1	2003–2003
Birmingham Baptist Hospital, Inc. v. Blackwell green ala · 1930 2 sentences 1980Birmingham Baptist Hospital v. Blackwell , 221 Ala. 225 , 128 So. 389 (1930). 1980Birmingham Baptist Hospital v. Blackwell , 221 Ala. 225 , 128 So. 389 (1930).	1	1980–1980

Statutes the citing opinions construe

AL § Ala. Code § 13A-5-40 (29) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-5-49 (25) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-5-51 (18) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-5-53 (18) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-5-45 (17) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-5-47 (17) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-5-52 (11) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-5-46 (10) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-6-2 (6) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-3-1 (5) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-3-2 (5) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-5-48 (5)

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.

Where else courts name it

OH 763 (1984–2026) WA 493 (1981–2026) CA 282 (1961–2026) TN 276 (2001–2026) KS 247 (1994–2026) NM 222 (1967–2026) UT 194 (1986–2026) ID 183 (1987–2026) CO 143 (1983–2026) MS 136 (1991–2026) TX 132 (1948–2026) GA 106 (1984–2026) NV 99 (1994–2026) FL 98 (1985–2025) KY 89 (2012–2026) OK 76 (1988–2026) NJ 75 (1989–2026) WV 66 (1976–2025) MT 55 (1976–2026) AL 43 (1980–2022) IL 42 (1982–2026) MI 35 (1995–2026) AZ 35 (1966–2026) WY 29 (1991–2025) AR 29 (1994–2025) MN 23 (1989–2026) PA 22 (1979–2026) SC 22 (2005–2026) OR 17 (2000–2026) MA 12 (1996–2025) CT 12 (1980–2021) NE 12 (2002–2026) DE 11 (2014–2025) NC 10 (2014–2026) IA 10 (2017–2025) LA 8 (2009–2024) VI 6 (2012–2013) MD 5 (1999–2022) WI 4 (2003–2022) SD 3 (2019–2026) ME 3 (2013–2024) ND 2 (2013–2013) IN 2 (2009–2018) VT 2 (2017–2018)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check