Code of Alabama

Ala. Code § 1-3-1 (2026)

Common Law of England Adopted.

✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaAla. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The common law of England, so far as it is not inconsistent with the Constitution, laws and institutions of this state, shall, together with such institutions and laws, be the rule of decisions, and shall continue in force, except as from time to time it may be altered or repealed by the Legislature.

(Code 1907, §12; Code 1923, §14; Code 1940, T. 1, §3.)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 60 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: Christopher v. Christopher, 145 So. 3d 60 (Ala. 2013).
Christopher v. Christopher, 145 So. 3d 60 (Ala. 2013). · cites it 4× “Code 1975, and ignored § 1-3-1, Ala.Code 1975, but also violated the separation-of-powers doctrine by usurping the legislative function of making law.”
Mattison v. Kirk, 497 So. 2d 120 (Ala. 1986). · cites it 4× “"At issue in this case are our present day `institutions' as that term is employed by Code 1975, § 1-3-1, and the evolving nature of the common law of Alabama.”
United States v. Jorge Rodriguez, 711 F.3d 541 (5th Cir. 2013). “, Ala.Code § 1-3-1; Cal. Civ.Code § 22.2; Haw.”
Gallant v. Gallant, 184 So. 3d 387 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “Ala.Code 1975, § 1-3-1. The “common law” includes the equitable rules arid practices of English chancery courts, see Cox v.”
Key v. State, 890 So. 2d 1043 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “Thus, § 1-3-1, which continues in force the common law `except as from time to time it may be altered or repealed by the legislature,' remains intact, although its future field of operation may be reduced.”
Alabama Power Co. v. Turner, 575 So. 2d 551 (Ala. 1991). · cites it 2× “" Ala. Code 1975, § 1-3-1. In my opinion, in Alabama it is unconstitutional for the legislature or the judiciary (and I believe that the fault lies exclusively with the judiciary, Tatum, 523 So.”
Marks v. Tenbrunsel, 910 So. 2d 1255 (Ala. 2005). · cites it 2× “Alabama Code 1975, § 1-3-1, provides: "The common law of England, so far as it is not inconsistent with the Constitution, laws and institutions of this state, shall, together with such institutions and laws, be the rule of decisions, and shall continue in force, except as from…”
Ex Parte Univ. of South Alabama, 541 So. 2d 535 (Ala. 1989). · cites it 2× “This burden is not on the shoulders of the illegitimate's maternal grandfather! Alabama is a common law state, Ala. Code 1975, § 1-3-1, and, at the common law, even the father of an illegitimate child was not responsible for such expenses.”
Campbell v. Alabama Power Co., 567 So. 2d 1222 (Ala. 1990). · cites it 3× “The defendant and the amicus curiae contend that the State of Alabama legislatively adopted the common law of England in 1907 when it adopted the provision that is now codified as Code 1975, § 1-3-1. That section provides: "The common law of England, so far as it is not…”
Riley v. Cornerstone Cmty. Outreach, Inc., 57 So. 3d 704 (Ala. 2010). · cites it 2× “To give the section the broad construction that the majority gives it clearly puts § 36-15-21 at odds with §§ 113 and 120 of our Constitution, for it allows the attorney general’s statutory or even common law power (if such was not ‘altered or repealed’ by § 36-15-21, see…”
Tillman v. RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co., 871 So. 2d 28 (Ala. 2003). “We will not presume to so define the boundaries of the judicially created AEMLD so that it subsumes the common-law tort actions of negligence and wantonness against the retailer defendants. C. Civil Conspiracy Although there remains a "potential cause of action" for negligence…”
Ex Parte Weaver, 570 So. 2d 675 (Ala. 1990). · cites it 2× “To give the section the broad construction that the majority gives it clearly puts § 36-15-21 at odds with §§ 113 and 120 of our Constitution, for it allows the attorney general's statutory or even common law power (if such was not "altered or repealed" by § 36-15-21, see…”
— Ala. Code § 1-3-1(b) — 1 case
Sanford v. Hurst (N.D. Ala. 2025).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.