¶1(concurring.) — Being of the opinion that the views entertained and expressed by the dissenting justices (of whom, with Justices Simpson and Denson, I was one) in Eidge v. City of Bessemer, 164 Ala., pp. 607-622, 51 South. 246, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 394, were and are correct and sound, I desire to limit my concurrence in the response to the questions certified, in this instance, by the Conrt of Appeals to *54their concrete answers, excluding my agreement to the opinion (ante) in the particular in which the majority view in the Eidge Case is reaffirmed. Additionally, I am unable to see how, on principle, the pertinent doctrine of Fitzpatrick v. State, 169 Ala. 1, 53 South. 1021 (subsequently delivered), can be reconciled with the majority view in Eidge’s Case, supra.
179 Ala. 50
Williams v. State
Decided January 29, 1913
Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1913-01-29
Heard before Hon. W. W. Pearson. George Williams was convicted of violating the prohibition law and appealed to the Court of Appeals, ivho certified the constitutional question involved to the Supreme Court.
Relies on Fitzpatrick v. State
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Constitutionality of the act upheld · Decided 1913-01-29
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently June 1933
4 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →