Legal Opinion · Dissent

Ex Parte Rawls

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided September 1, 2006No. 1041495Published

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

  1. Landis v. North American Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1936
  2. Baxter v. PalmigianoSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  3. Hoffman v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
  4. Williams v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  5. Afro-Lecon, Inc. v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1987

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API