Graham v. State

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

Graham v. State

224 So. 2d 905, 45 Ala. App. 79, 1969 Ala. App. LEXIS 326

CourtCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama

DecidedMay 20, 1969

Docket8 Div. 216.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 224 So. 2d 905 (Graham v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Graham v. State, 224 So. 2d 905, 45 Ala. App. 79, 1969 Ala. App. LEXIS 326 (Ala. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

CATES, Judge.

Appellant legally bought whiskey in the wet county of Madison. He took it to his home in the dry county of Colbert. He was arrested and convicted under Code 1940, T. 29, Sec. 98. Prior decisions compel that we affirm his conviction.

Local option is permissible State action under the Fourteenth Amendment. Rippey v. Texas, 193 U.S. 504, 24 S.Ct. 516, 48 L.Ed. 767; Lloyd v. Dollison, 194 U.S. 445, 24 S.Ct. 703, 48 L.Ed. 1062; and Eberle v. Michigan, 232 U.S. 700, 34 S.Ct. 464, 58 L.Ed. 803.

We do not consider that Code 1940, T. 13, Sec. 95, requires us to be bound by the single, separate, specially concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Brown in Holt v. State, 238 Ala. 2, 193 So. 89. The majority opinion therein does require that we affirm the judgment below. See also Williams v. State, 28 Ala.App. 73, 179 So. 915 (11); and Casmus v. Lee, 236 Ala. 396, 183 So. 185, 118 A.L.R. 822.

The judgment of the Law and Equity Court is hereby Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

CATES, Judge.

Appellant legally bought whiskey in the wet county of Madison. He took it to his home in the dry county of Colbert. He was arrested and convicted under Code 1940, T. 29, Sec. 98. Prior decisions compel that we affirm his conviction.

Local option is permissible State action under the Fourteenth Amendment. Rippey v. Texas, 193 U.S. 504, 24 S.Ct. 516, 48 L.Ed. 767; Lloyd v. Dollison, 194 U.S. 445, 24 S.Ct. 703, 48 L.Ed. 1062; and Eberle v. Michigan, 232 U.S. 700, 34 S.Ct. 464, 58 L.Ed. 803.

We do not consider that Code 1940, T. 13, Sec. 95, requires us to be bound by the single, separate, specially concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Brown in Holt v. State, 238 Ala. 2, 193 So. 89. The majority opinion therein does require that we affirm the judgment below. See also Williams v. State, 28 Ala.App. 73, 179 So. 915 (11); and Casmus v. Lee, 236 Ala. 396, 183 So. 185, 118 A.L.R. 822.

The judgment of the Law and Equity Court is hereby Affirmed.

Philly's, the Original Philadelphia Cheese Steak, Inc. v. Jane M. Byrne, as Mayor and as Liquor Control Commissioner of the City of Chicago, and Illinois Liquor Control Commission, Defendant-Intervenor-Appellee. Los Farrallones, Inc., an Illinois Corporation, Jorge Aristizabal, and Nick Andrews v. Jane M. Byrne, as Mayor and as Liquor Control Commissioner of the City of Chicago, and Illinois Liquor Control Commission, Defendant-Intervenor-Appellee

732 F.2d 87 (Seventh Circuit, 1984)

Philly's v. Byrne

732 F.2d 87 (Seventh Circuit, 1984)

Welden v. State

328 So. 2d 630 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1976)

Graham v. State

224 So. 2d 906 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 So. 2d 905, 45 Ala. App. 79, 1969 Ala. App. LEXIS 326, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/graham-v-state-alacivapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack