Legal Opinion · Dissent

Van Valkenburg v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Decided November 12, 1946No. 8 Div. 510Published

1DissentBricken, Presiding Judge

Having carefully and attentively considered all the facts and circumstances of this case as disclosed by the record I find myself unable to accord to the views and opinion of my Associates.

The prosecution in this case was begun by affidavit, and based upon Title 14, Section 426, Code of Alabama 1940, which makes it an offense for any person without legal cause or good excuse to enter on the premises of another after having been warned, within six months preceding not to do so.

The record discloses, and it is admitted by respective parties, that the “premises” alleged to have been trespassed…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Watson v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1879
  2. Woodruff v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1911
  3. Havard v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1929

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

Powered by the Exa API