Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

225 Ala. 540

144 So 18

Pryor v. Limestone County

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided October 6, 1932

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1932-10-06

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““In arguing this case to the jury, counsel for appellee said: ‘Gentlemen, these rich little children have no complaint against Limestone County; by taking this land the county has made them richer.’ This argument was highly improper, and, notwithstanding the trial court sustained appellants’ objection to same, and instructed the jury not to consider said argument, it is of that character which is so poisonous and improper as to be almost immune from eradication. [Citations omitted.] “The trial court erred in not granting the motion for a new trial on account of this improper argument.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including 53 Ala. App. 340 - Landers v. Long

Relies on Birmingham Baptist Hospital, Inc. v. Blackwell · American Ry. Express Co. v. Reid · Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Carter

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1932-10-06

How this case has been cited

Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently September 1996 · most notably Rowe v. State (1943), Birmingham Electric Co. v. Mann (1933)

46 state decisions

2401932194019501960197019801990decided

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 →

ANDERSON, C. J.

¶1 In arguing this case to the jury, counsel for appellee said: “Gentlemen, these rich little children have no complaint against Limestone County; by taking this land the county has made them richer.” This argument was highly improper, and, notwithstanding the trial court sustained appellants’ objection to same, and instructed the jury not to consider said argument, it is of that character which is so-poisonous and improper as to be almost immune from eradication. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Carter, 212 Ala. 212, 102 So. 130; Standridge v. Martin, 203 Ala. 486, 84 So. 226; American Ry. Express Co. v. Reid, 216 Ala. 479, 113 So. 507; Birmingham Baptist Hospital v. Blackwell, 221 Ala. 225, 128 So. 389, 393, and cases there cited.

¶2 The trial court erred in not granting the ■motion for a new trial on 'account of this improper argument.

¶3 Charges 1 and 2, given at the request of the appellee, were in effect approved upon the former appeal of this case. Pryor v. Limestone County, 222 Ala. 621, 134 So. 17.

¶4 The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

¶5 Reversed and remanded.

GARDNER, BOULDIN, and FOSTER, JJ., concur.
/225/ala/540 · .json · Public domain