contention error in Alabama

1973Woodard v. State, 253 Ala. 259 , 44 So.2d 241 ; Neal v. State, 36 Ala.App. 156 , 54 So.2d 613 ; Hamilton v. State, 270 Ala. 184 , 116 So.2d 906 .

1973Woodard v. State, 253 Ala. 259 , 44 So.2d 241 ; Neal v. State, 36 Ala.App. 156 , 54 So.2d 613 ; Hamilton v. State, 270 Ala. 184 , 116 So.2d 906 .

1973Woodard v. State, 253 Ala. 259 , 44 So.2d 241 ; Neal v. State, 36 Ala.App. 156 , 54 So.2d 613 ; Hamilton v. State, 270 Ala. 184 , 116 So.2d 906 .

1973Woodard v. State, 253 Ala. 259 , 44 So.2d 241 ; Neal v. State, 36 Ala.App. 156 , 54 So.2d 613 ; Hamilton v. State, 270 Ala. 184 , 116 So.2d 906 .

1973Woodard v. State, 253 Ala. 259 , 44 So.2d 241 ; Neal v. State, 36 Ala.App. 156 , 54 So.2d 613 ; Hamilton v. State, 270 Ala. 184 , 116 So.2d 906 .

1973Woodard v. State, 253 Ala. 259 , 44 So.2d 241 ; Neal v. State, 36 Ala.App. 156 , 54 So.2d 613 ; Hamilton v. State, 270 Ala. 184 , 116 So.2d 906 .

1917It is identical with charge 15, and there was no error in its refusal. — Watts v. State, 177 Ala. 24 , 59 South. 270 . (20) There is no merit in the contention that it was error to refuse charge 29, for the charge is bad and has been condemned in Phillips v. State, 162 Ala. 14 , 50 South. 194 ; Bailey v. State, 168 Ala. 4 , 53 South. 296, 390 ; Smith v. State, 161 Ala. 94 , 49 South. 1029 . (21) Charge 32 was faulty, in that it was argumentative and also obscure in meaning. — Watts v. State, 177 Ala. 24 , 59 South. 270 . (22) Charge 33 was bad.

1917It is identical with charge 15, and there was no error in its refusal. — Watts v. State, 177 Ala. 24 , 59 South. 270 . (20) There is no merit in the contention that it was error to refuse charge 29, for the charge is bad and has been condemned in Phillips v. State, 162 Ala. 14 , 50 South. 194 ; Bailey v. State, 168 Ala. 4 , 53 South. 296, 390 ; Smith v. State, 161 Ala. 94 , 49 South. 1029 . (21) Charge 32 was faulty, in that it was argumentative and also obscure in meaning. — Watts v. State, 177 Ala. 24 , 59 South. 270 . (22) Charge 33 was bad.

1917It is identical with charge 15, and there was no error in its refusal. — Watts v. State, 177 Ala. 24 , 59 South. 270 . (20) There is no merit in the contention that it was error to refuse charge 29, for the charge is bad and has been condemned in Phillips v. State, 162 Ala. 14 , 50 South. 194 ; Bailey v. State, 168 Ala. 4 , 53 South. 296, 390 ; Smith v. State, 161 Ala. 94 , 49 South. 1029 . (21) Charge 32 was faulty, in that it was argumentative and also obscure in meaning. — Watts v. State, 177 Ala. 24 , 59 South. 270 . (22) Charge 33 was bad.

1917It is identical with charge 15, and there was no error in its refusal. — Watts v. State, 177 Ala. 24 , 59 South. 270 . (20) There is no merit in the contention that it was error to refuse charge 29, for the charge is bad and has been condemned in Phillips v. State, 162 Ala. 14 , 50 South. 194 ; Bailey v. State, 168 Ala. 4 , 53 South. 296, 390 ; Smith v. State, 161 Ala. 94 , 49 South. 1029 . (21) Charge 32 was faulty, in that it was argumentative and also obscure in meaning. — Watts v. State, 177 Ala. 24 , 59 South. 270 . (22) Charge 33 was bad.

1917The character of doubt which authorizes an acquittal is a reasonable doubt, and this charge is faulty, in that it omits the word “reasonable” before the word “doubt.” — Green v. State, 168 Ala. 104 , 53 South. 284 ; Kirby v. State, 151 Ala. 66 , 44 South. 38 . (23) There was no error in refusing charge 34.

1917The character of doubt which authorizes an acquittal is a reasonable doubt, and this charge is faulty, in that it omits the word “reasonable” before the word “doubt.” — Green v. State, 168 Ala. 104 , 53 South. 284 ; Kirby v. State, 151 Ala. 66 , 44 South. 38 . (23) There was no error in refusing charge 34.

1917The character of doubt which authorizes an acquittal is a reasonable doubt, and this charge is faulty, in that it omits the word “reasonable” before the word “doubt.” — Green v. State, 168 Ala. 104 , 53 South. 284 ; Kirby v. State, 151 Ala. 66 , 44 South. 38 . (23) There was no error in refusing charge 34.

1917The character of doubt which authorizes an acquittal is a reasonable doubt, and this charge is faulty, in that it omits the word “reasonable” before the word “doubt.” — Green v. State, 168 Ala. 104 , 53 South. 284 ; Kirby v. State, 151 Ala. 66 , 44 South. 38 . (23) There was no error in refusing charge 34.

1917It is identical with charge 15, and there was no error in its refusal. — Watts v. State, 177 Ala. 24 , 59 South. 270 . (20) There is no merit in the contention that it was error to refuse charge 29, for the charge is bad and has been condemned in Phillips v. State, 162 Ala. 14 , 50 South. 194 ; Bailey v. State, 168 Ala. 4 , 53 South. 296, 390 ; Smith v. State, 161 Ala. 94 , 49 South. 1029 . (21) Charge 32 was faulty, in that it was argumentative and also obscure in meaning. — Watts v. State, 177 Ala. 24 , 59 South. 270 . (22) Charge 33 was bad.

1917It is identical with charge 15, and there was no error in its refusal. — Watts v. State, 177 Ala. 24 , 59 South. 270 . (20) There is no merit in the contention that it was error to refuse charge 29, for the charge is bad and has been condemned in Phillips v. State, 162 Ala. 14 , 50 South. 194 ; Bailey v. State, 168 Ala. 4 , 53 South. 296, 390 ; Smith v. State, 161 Ala. 94 , 49 South. 1029 . (21) Charge 32 was faulty, in that it was argumentative and also obscure in meaning. — Watts v. State, 177 Ala. 24 , 59 South. 270 . (22) Charge 33 was bad.

1917It is identical with charge 15, and there was no error in its refusal. — Watts v. State, 177 Ala. 24 , 59 South. 270 . (20) There is no merit in the contention that it was error to refuse charge 29, for the charge is bad and has been condemned in Phillips v. State, 162 Ala. 14 , 50 South. 194 ; Bailey v. State, 168 Ala. 4 , 53 South. 296, 390 ; Smith v. State, 161 Ala. 94 , 49 South. 1029 . (21) Charge 32 was faulty, in that it was argumentative and also obscure in meaning. — Watts v. State, 177 Ala. 24 , 59 South. 270 . (22) Charge 33 was bad.

1917It is identical with charge 15, and there was no error in its refusal. — Watts v. State, 177 Ala. 24 , 59 South. 270 . (20) There is no merit in the contention that it was error to refuse charge 29, for the charge is bad and has been condemned in Phillips v. State, 162 Ala. 14 , 50 South. 194 ; Bailey v. State, 168 Ala. 4 , 53 South. 296, 390 ; Smith v. State, 161 Ala. 94 , 49 South. 1029 . (21) Charge 32 was faulty, in that it was argumentative and also obscure in meaning. — Watts v. State, 177 Ala. 24 , 59 South. 270 . (22) Charge 33 was bad.

2011Co. v. Outlaw, 36 Ala.App. 278 , 60 So.2d 367 [ (1951) ], cert. den., 257 Ala. 585 , 60 So.2d 377 [(1952)].’ “And in Callaway v. Adams, 252 Ala. 136, 142 , 40 So.2d 73, 77-78 (1949), this Court wrote: “ ‘The contention that there was error in refusing the general affirmative charge as to the contributory negligence of plaintiff is sought to be sustained by the generally stated rule of absolute duty at any railroad crossing where cars and locomotives are liable to be moving of anyone attempting to cross the railroad track to stop, look and listen, and a denial of recovery as for simple initial

2011Co. v. Outlaw, 36 Ala.App. 278 , 60 So.2d 367 [ (1951) ], cert. den., 257 Ala. 585 , 60 So.2d 377 [(1952)].’ “And in Callaway v. Adams, 252 Ala. 136, 142 , 40 So.2d 73, 77-78 (1949), this Court wrote: “ ‘The contention that there was error in refusing the general affirmative charge as to the contributory negligence of plaintiff is sought to be sustained by the generally stated rule of absolute duty at any railroad crossing where cars and locomotives are liable to be moving of anyone attempting to cross the railroad track to stop, look and listen, and a denial of recovery as for simple initial

2011Co. v. Outlaw, 36 Ala.App. 278 , 60 So.2d 367 [ (1951) ], cert. den., 257 Ala. 585 , 60 So.2d 377 [(1952)].’ “And in Callaway v. Adams, 252 Ala. 136, 142 , 40 So.2d 73, 77-78 (1949), this Court wrote: “ ‘The contention that there was error in refusing the general affirmative charge as to the contributory negligence of plaintiff is sought to be sustained by the generally stated rule of absolute duty at any railroad crossing where cars and locomotives are liable to be moving of anyone attempting to cross the railroad track to stop, look and listen, and a denial of recovery as for simple initial

2011Co. v. Outlaw, 36 Ala.App. 278 , 60 So.2d 367 [ (1951) ], cert. den., 257 Ala. 585 , 60 So.2d 377 [(1952)].’ “And in Callaway v. Adams, 252 Ala. 136, 142 , 40 So.2d 73, 77-78 (1949), this Court wrote: “ ‘The contention that there was error in refusing the general affirmative charge as to the contributory negligence of plaintiff is sought to be sustained by the generally stated rule of absolute duty at any railroad crossing where cars and locomotives are liable to be moving of anyone attempting to cross the railroad track to stop, look and listen, and a denial of recovery as for simple initial

2003In three cases, Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Run-a-Ford Co. , 276 Ala. 311 , 161 So.2d 789 (1964); Ladner Co. v. Southern Guaranty Ins.

2003In three cases, Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Run-a-Ford Co. , 276 Ala. 311 , 161 So.2d 789 (1964); Ladner Co. v. Southern Guaranty Ins.

1996"The doctrine of collateral estoppel is embodied in the Fifth Amendment guarantee against double jeopardy . . . [and] . . . provides that when an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot again be litigated between the same parties in any future lawsuit." United States v. Bailey , 34 F.3d 683 , 688 (8th Cir. 1994).

1993Id.

1992Asking the jury to show mercy does not invite comment on the system of appellate review. ' " Caldwell v. Mississippi , 472 U.S. at 337 , 105 S.Ct. at 2644 (quoting State v. Caldwell , 443 So.2d 806 , 817 (Miss. 1983) (Lee, J., dissenting)) (emphasis added).

1992Asking the jury to show mercy does not invite comment on the system of appellate review. ' " Caldwell v. Mississippi , 472 U.S. at 337 , 105 S.Ct. at 2644 (quoting State v. Caldwell , 443 So.2d 806 , 817 (Miss. 1983) (Lee, J., dissenting)) (emphasis added).

1991This court rejected a contention of error by the trial court in Powers v. State , 49 Ala. App. 690 , 275 So.2d 369 (1973), in denying a similar motion filed three months prior to trial where the record did not indicate that the motion was presented for ruling before the date of trial.

1991This court rejected a contention of error by the trial court in Powers v. State , 49 Ala. App. 690 , 275 So.2d 369 (1973), in denying a similar motion filed three months prior to trial where the record did not indicate that the motion was presented for ruling before the date of trial.

1988The appellant argues that this court has rejected the contention that this error could be harmless in Foster v. State , 37 Ala. App. at ___ , 66 So.2d at 207 , wherein it was stated: "In the fairly recent case of Echols v. State , 36 Ala. App. 302 , 55 So.2d 522 [(1950)], we held in effect that, if a witness gives positive testimony that the defendant's character and reputation are good, it is error without injury to deny the right to introduce negative testimony in support of good character.

1988The appellant argues that this court has rejected the contention that this error could be harmless in Foster v. State , 37 Ala. App. at ___ , 66 So.2d at 207 , wherein it was stated: "In the fairly recent case of Echols v. State , 36 Ala. App. 302 , 55 So.2d 522 [(1950)], we held in effect that, if a witness gives positive testimony that the defendant's character and reputation are good, it is error without injury to deny the right to introduce negative testimony in support of good character.

1988The appellant argues that this court has rejected the contention that this error could be harmless in Foster v. State , 37 Ala. App. at ___ , 66 So.2d at 207 , wherein it was stated: "In the fairly recent case of Echols v. State , 36 Ala. App. 302 , 55 So.2d 522 [(1950)], we held in effect that, if a witness gives positive testimony that the defendant's character and reputation are good, it is error without injury to deny the right to introduce negative testimony in support of good character.

1988The appellant argues that this court has rejected the contention that this error could be harmless in Foster v. State , 37 Ala. App. at ___ , 66 So.2d at 207 , wherein it was stated: "In the fairly recent case of Echols v. State , 36 Ala. App. 302 , 55 So.2d 522 [(1950)], we held in effect that, if a witness gives positive testimony that the defendant's character and reputation are good, it is error without injury to deny the right to introduce negative testimony in support of good character.

1986A majority of the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, holding that the presumption in favor of a parent over a nonparent "does not apply when the non-custodial parent seeks modification of a prior custody decree." The Court of Civil Appeals cited this Court's opinion in Ex parte McLendon , 455 So.2d 863 (Ala. 1984), and also relied on two of its own cases: Sasser v. Thompson , 457 So.2d 422 (Ala.Civ.App. 1984), and Lewis v. Douglass , 440 So.2d 1073 (Ala.Civ.App. 1983).

1986A majority of the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, holding that the presumption in favor of a parent over a nonparent "does not apply when the non-custodial parent seeks modification of a prior custody decree." The Court of Civil Appeals cited this Court's opinion in Ex parte McLendon, 455 So.2d 863 (Ala.1984), and also relied on two of its own cases: Sasser v. Thompson, 457 So.2d 422 (Ala. Civ.App.1984), and Lewis v. Douglass, 440 So.2d 1073 (Ala.Civ.App.1983).

1986A majority of the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, holding that the presumption in favor of a parent over a nonparent "does not apply when the non-custodial parent seeks modification of a prior custody decree." The Court of Civil Appeals cited this Court's opinion in Ex parte McLendon , 455 So.2d 863 (Ala. 1984), and also relied on two of its own cases: Sasser v. Thompson , 457 So.2d 422 (Ala.Civ.App. 1984), and Lewis v. Douglass , 440 So.2d 1073 (Ala.Civ.App. 1983).

1986A majority of the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, holding that the presumption in favor of a parent over a nonparent "does not apply when the non-custodial parent seeks modification of a prior custody decree." The Court of Civil Appeals cited this Court's opinion in Ex parte McLendon, 455 So.2d 863 (Ala.1984), and also relied on two of its own cases: Sasser v. Thompson, 457 So.2d 422 (Ala. Civ.App.1984), and Lewis v. Douglass, 440 So.2d 1073 (Ala.Civ.App.1983).