In civil actions and proceedings, there must be no exclusion of any witness because he is a party or interested in the issue tried, except that no person having a pecuniary interest in the result of the action or proceeding shall be allowed to testify against the party to whom his interest is opposed as to any transaction with, or statement by, the deceased person whose estate is interested in the result of the action or proceeding or when such deceased person, at the time of such transaction or statement, acted in any representative or fiduciary relation whatsoever to the party against whom such testimony is sought to be introduced, unless called to testify thereto by the party to whom such interest is opposed or unless the testimony of such deceased person in relation to such transaction or statement is introduced in evidence by the party whose interest is opposed to that of the witness or has been taken and is on file in the case. No person who is an incompetent witness under this section shall make himself competent by transferring his interest to another.
(Code 1867, §2704; Code 1876, §3058; Code 1886, §2765; Code 1896, §1794; Code 1907, §4007; Code 1923, §7721; Code 1940, T. 7, §433.)
Notes of Decisions
Schoenvogel v. Venator Grp. Retail, Inc., 895 So. 2d 225 (Ala. 2004).
· cites it 23× “Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-163. Superseding the Dead Man's Statute means that survivors will be allowed to testify, if their testimony otherwise complies with the rules of evidence, and that the unavailability of the deceased person will be merely a factor for the jury to consider…”
Crocker v. Grammer, 87 So. 3d 1190 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011).
“, superseded Alabama’s Dead Man’s Statute, § 12-21-163, Ala.Code 1975, stated that “when [the Supreme] Court adopted the Alabama Rules of Evidence effective January 1, 1996, those rules supplanted and superseded any provisions of Title 12 of the Code of Alabama 1975 inconsistent…”
Louis J. Lane v. Cent. Bank of Alabama, N.A., 756 F.2d 814 (11th Cir. 1985).
“Because of this statute, Lane argues that it is grossly unfair for a resident of one state to receive a favorable interpretation of federal law from his state court while a resident of another state receives a contrary analysis of the same federal right from his state court.”
McGee v. McGee, 91 So. 3d 659 (Ala. 2012).
· cites it 3× “See § 12-21-163, Ala.Code 1975 (Dead Man’s Statute); 5 see also Schoenvogel v.”
McDaniel v. Laminack, 603 So. 2d 1010 (Ala. 1992).
· cites it 4× “The trial court determined that the testimony is barred by Ala Code 1975, § 12-21-163, the Dead Man’s Statute, and refused to allow it.”
Wright v. NeSmith, 594 So. 2d 1210 (Ala. 1992).
· cites it 5× “However, we note, with regard to a witness’s testifying about conversations with a decedent, that Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-163, also known as the Dead Man’s Statute, provides in part: “[N]o person having a pecuniary interest in the result of the action or proceeding shall be…”
M.L.H. v. State, 99 So. 3d 894 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011).
· cites it 3× “The defendants filed a motion for a summary judgment claiming, in part, that the Dead Man’s Statute, § 12-21-163, Ala.Code 1975, prohibited Schoenvogel from testifying to the events surrounding the alleged assault.”
Polhemus v. Cobb, 653 So. 2d 964 (Ala. 1995).
“The defendant argues that the testimony should have been excluded by § 12-21-163, Ala.Code 1975, commonly known as the Dead Man’s Statute.”
Hollis v. Post, 487 So. 2d 872 (Ala. 1986).
· cites it 2× “With regard to specific performance, the court noted that it had ruled earlier that proffered evidence of the oral agreement between Mrs.”
Gholson v. Watson, 495 So. 2d 593 (Ala. 1986).
· cites it 2× “The defendants also contend that the exclusion of certain testimony, on the ground that it violated the dead man’s statute, Code of 1975, § 12-21-163, was erroneous. During the direct examination of Mr.”
Crenshaw v. Crenshaw, 646 So. 2d 661 (Ala. 1994).
“We do address, however, whether it was proper for the court to allow, and then to consider, Betty's testimony.”
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.