Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 12-19-271 (2026)
Definitions.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
The following words and phrases as used in this article, have the meaning ascribed to them in this section, unless the context clearly requires otherwise:
(1) WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL JUSTIFICATION. The phrase “without substantial justification”, when used with reference to any action, claim, defense or appeal, including without limitation any motion, means that such action, claim, defense or appeal (including any motion) is frivolous, groundless in fact or in law, or vexatious, or interposed for any improper purpose, including without limitation, to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation, as determined by the court.
(2) PERSON. Any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, joint stock company, or any other entity, including any governmental entity or unincorporated association of persons.
(3) ACTION. Any suit, counterclaim, crossclaim or third party claim filed at law or in equity, including any claim therein asserted by one or more parties or against one or more parties in a multi-party action or suit, or an appeal thereof.
(4) DEFENSE. Any affirmative defense under Rule 8(c), Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, filed in any action at law or in equity.
(Acts 1987, No. 87-186, p. 254, §2.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1991–2024 · leading case: Pac. ENT. OIL v. Howell Petroleum, 614 So. 2d 409 (Ala. 1993).
Pac. ENT. OIL v. Howell Petroleum, 614 So. 2d 409 (Ala. 1993). “Ala.Code 1975, § 12-19-271(1), provides: "The phrase `without substantial justification,' when used with reference to any action, claim, defense or appeal, including without limitation any motion, means that such action, claim, defense or appeal (including any motion) is…”
Morrow v. Gibson, 827 So. 2d 756 (Ala. 2002). “The string of words used to define "without substantial justification" in § 12-19-271(1) is presented in the alternative.”
Adams v. Adams, 21 So. 3d 1247 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). “In determining that the issue presented to it involved both legal determinations and factual findings, the supreme court explained: "The clear terms of § 12-19-271(1) require that for an action, claim, or defense to be `without substantial justification' it must be either…”
Scott v. Scott, 38 So. 3d 79 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). “See Ala.Code 1975, § 12-19-271(1) (defining "without substantial justification" as that term is used in the Alabama Litigation Accountability Act, Ala.”
The Sanderson Grp., Inc. v. Smith, 809 So. 2d 823 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001). “) "The clear terms of § 12-19-271(1) require that for an action, claim, or defense to be `without substantial justification' it must be either `frivolous,' `groundless in fact,' `groundless in law,' `vexatious,' or `interposed for any improper purpose.”
Starr v. Wilson, 11 So. 3d 846 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). “Because the issue whether Wilson, without justification, brought his claims against Starr in this action remains undecided, however, there remains a “conflict” as to Starr’s and Wilson’s “existing rights” to be resolved by the trial court. Similarly, the trial court’s…”
Crowl v. Kayo Oil Co., 848 So. 2d 930 (Ala. 2002). “, that are `frivolous, groundless in fact or in law, or vexatious, or interposed for any improper purpose, including without limitation, to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.”
Sam v. Beaird, 685 So. 2d 742 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996). “" § 12-19-271, Ala.Code 1975; Tatum v. Goode, 591 So.”
Mahoney v. Loma Alta Prop. Owners Ass'n, 52 So. 3d 510 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). “’ “The clear terms of § 12-19-271(1) require that for an action, claim, or defense to be ‘without substantial justification’ it must be either ‘frivolous,’ ‘groundless in fact,’ ‘groundless in law,’ ‘vexatious,’ or ‘interposed for any improper purpose.”
D.R. Horton, Inc.—Birmingham v. Ferrari, 171 So. 3d 631 (Ala. 2015). “” See Ala.Code 1975, §§ 12-19-271 and-272.”
Schweiger v. Town of Hurtsboro, 68 So. 3d 181 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011). “” Ala.Code 1975, § 12-19-271(1). We agree with Schweiger that the Town’s request for attorney fees as a sanction against Schweiger because “the case is not plead in good faith and otherwise fails to rise to the level of initiating legal and/or equitable actions in the State of…”
S.C.W. v. C.B., 826 So. 2d 825 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001). “” Section 12-19-271(1) defines an action “without substantial justification” as an action that is “frivolous, groundless in fact or law, vexatious, or interposed for any improper purpose, including without limitation, to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost…”
— Ala. Code § 12-19-271(1) — 21 cases
Pac. ENT. OIL v. Howell Petroleum, 614 So. 2d 409 (Ala. 1993). “Ala.Code 1975, § 12-19-271(1), provides: "The phrase `without substantial justification,' when used with reference to any action, claim, defense or appeal, including without limitation any motion, means that such action, claim, defense or appeal (including any motion) is…”
Morrow v. Gibson, 827 So. 2d 756 (Ala. 2002). “The string of words used to define "without substantial justification" in § 12-19-271(1) is presented in the alternative.”
Adams v. Adams, 21 So. 3d 1247 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). “In determining that the issue presented to it involved both legal determinations and factual findings, the supreme court explained: "The clear terms of § 12-19-271(1) require that for an action, claim, or defense to be `without substantial justification' it must be either…”
Scott v. Scott, 38 So. 3d 79 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). “See Ala.Code 1975, § 12-19-271(1) (defining "without substantial justification" as that term is used in the Alabama Litigation Accountability Act, Ala.”
The Sanderson Grp., Inc. v. Smith, 809 So. 2d 823 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001). “) "The clear terms of § 12-19-271(1) require that for an action, claim, or defense to be `without substantial justification' it must be either `frivolous,' `groundless in fact,' `groundless in law,' `vexatious,' or `interposed for any improper purpose.”
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.