Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
Supreme Court of Alabama, 1998

Weldon v. State

Weldon v. State
Supreme Court of Alabama · Decided June 19, 1998 · Shores, Hooper, Lyons, Almon, Kennedy, Cook, Houston, Maddox, See
718 So. 2d 54; 1998 Ala. LEXIS 160; 1998 WL 323704 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)
Weldon v. State

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

SHORES, Justice.

WRIT DENIED. NO OPINION.

ALMON, KENNEDY, and COOK, JJ., concur. HOUSTON, J., concurs specially. HOOPER, C.J., and MADDOX, SEE, and LYONS, JJ., dissent.

Concurring Opinion

HOUSTON, Justice

(concurring specially).

Because the United States Supreme Court has held that the Excessive Fines Clause applies to forfeiture of property in drug cases, but has declined to establish a test for determining whether a forfeiture is excessive, I believe it is appropriate for this Court, in deciding which test it should adopt for the State of Alabama, to follow the logic applied by the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. In United States v. One Parcel Property Located at 427 and 429 Hall Street, Montgomery, Montgomery County, Alabama, 74 F.3d 1165 (11th Cir. 1996), the Eleventh Circuit adopted the “proportionality test.” Therefore, I concurred when the majority of this Court employed the proportionality test in Dent v. State, 714 So.2d 988 (Ala. 1998), and I concur in denying this petition for the writ of certiorari.

Dissenting Opinion

MADDOX, Justice

(dissenting).

I respectfully dissent. Gee my dissent in Dent v. State, 714 So.2d 988 (Ala. 1998).

HOOPER, C.J., and LYONS, J., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.