Ex Parte Rawls
Supreme Court of Alabama
1Dissent
I respectfully dissent. I assume, for the sake of argument, that the divorce case and the stalking prosecution are parallel proceedings.7 Nevertheless, I would deny the petition.
"`The Constitution does not require a stay of civil proceedings pending the outcome of criminal proceedings. . . .'" Exparte Baugh, 530 So.2d 238, 243 (Ala. 1988) (quotingAfro-Lecon, Inc. v. United States, 820 F.2d 1198, 1202 (Fed. Cir.1987)). Instead, the trial court has broad discretion to grant or deny a stay of the civil proceedings. Ex parteCoastal Training Inst., 583 So.2d 979, 980-81 (Ala. 1991);see Landis v.…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Landis v. North American Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Baxter v. PalmigianoSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Hoffman v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
- Williams v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Afro-Lecon, Inc. v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1987
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.