Bolin v. State
Alabama Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
HARWOOD, Presiding Judge.
This appellant has been found guilty under an indictment charging that he “did have in his possession for the purpose of making, producing or manufacturing a stink bomb, or a substitute or device therefor, to-wit, three fourths of a liquid ounce of ethyl mercaptan, one of the ingredients necessary or commonly used in making, producing, or manufacturing such stink bomb or substitute or device therefor, against the peace and dignity of the State of Alabama.”
It is apparent that this charge was based upon that portion of Section 369, Title 14, Code of Alabama 1940, which…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Bolin v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1957
- Carter v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1943
3Cited by15 opinions
- Ross Neely Exp., Inc. v. ALA. DEPT. OF ENVIRON. MANAGEMENTSupreme Court of Alabama · 1983
- Friday v. Ethanol Corp.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1988
- City of Russellville v. Vulcan Materials Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1980
- Dixon v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1959
- State v. LupoSupreme Court of Alabama · 2007
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.