When a judgment or decree is entered or rendered for money, whether debt or damages, and the same has been stayed on appeal by the execution of bond, with surety, if the appellate court affirms the judgment of the court below, it must also enter judgment against all or any of the obligors on the bond for the amount of the affirmed judgment, and the costs of the appellate court; and, upon the appeal of any judgment or decree entered or rendered for any amount of commissions, fees or compensation fixed or determined by the trial court and taxed or allowed as costs, if the appellate court affirms the judgment or decree of the court below and the payment thereof has been stayed on such appeal, judgment shall be entered by the appellate court against all or any of the obligors on the bond for the amount affirmed, and the costs of the appellate court; provided, however, that if no supersedeas bond has been executed on such appeal, the appellate court, in the event of affirmance, shall increase the amount so allowed as costs by the court below in the judgment or decree appealed from by adding thereto the costs of the appellate court.
(Code 1852, §§3032, 3033; Code 1867, §§3500, 3501; Code 1876, §§3941, 3942; Code 1886, §§3661, 3662; Code 1896, §478; Code 1907, §2893; Code 1923, §6153; Code 1940, T. 7, §814; Acts 1951, No. 724, p. 1275; Acts 1987, No. 87-188, p. 259,§1.)
Notes of Decisions
Burlington N. R.R. v. Woods, 480 U.S. 1 (1987).
· cites it 3× “*3 Respondents then moved in the Court of Appeals, pursuant to Ala. Code § 12-22-72 (1986), for imposition of that State’s mandatory affirmance penalty of 10% of the amount of judgment.”
Aetna Life Ins. v. Lavoie, 475 U.S. 813 (1986).
· cites it 2× “In addition, appellant contends that Ala. Code § 12-22-72 (1975), under which any person who unsuccessfully appeals a money judgment is assessed a 10% penalty, is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
First Ala. Bank of Montgomery, NA v. Martin, 425 So. 2d 415 (Ala. 1983).
· cites it 4× “After the original opinion was issued, a motion was made by the appellees to *430 amend the original judgment by adding thereto, pursuant to § 12-22-72, Code 1975, ten percent of $2,653,152.”
Brown Mech. Contractors, Inc. v. Centennial Ins. Co., 431 So. 2d 932 (Ala. 1983).
· cites it 3× “In response to our substituted opinion, the parties have now asked us to modify the judgment for clarification of Goodner's and Brown's liability for the foundation damages, the ten percent affirmance penalty under Code of 1975, § 12-22-72, and interest on the judgment.”
Alabama Power Co. v. Cantrell, 507 So. 2d 1295 (Ala. 1987).
· cites it 5× “5 million punitive damage award is impermissible under the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment; and that lack of sufficient standards governing punitive damage awards in Alabama violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Lavoie, 505 So. 2d 1050 (Ala. 1987).
· cites it 2× “In addition, appellant contends that Ala.Code § 12-22-72 (1975), under which any person who unsuccessfully appeals a money judgment is assessed 10% penalty, is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Indus. Chem. & Fiberglass Corp. v. Chandler, 547 So. 2d 812 (Ala. 1989).
· cites it 2× “In addition, appellant contends that Ala.Code § 12-22-72 (1975), under which any person who unsuccessfully appeals a money judgment is assessed a 10% penalty, is unconstitutional *825 under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
All v. All, 645 F.3d 329 (5th Cir. 2011).
“967 (citing Ala.Code § 12-22-72 (1986)). The Court found that the mandatory nature of the Alabama statute and the discretionary nature of the Federal Rule gave rise to a conflict: Rule 38 affords a court of appeals plenary discretion to assess “just damages” in order to penalize…”
Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Clay, 525 So. 2d 1339 (Ala. 1987).
· cites it 2× “Acts 1987, which amended Ala.Code 1975, § 12-22-72 and § 12-22-73, which provided for a statutory affirmance penalty of 10%, has no application in this case.”
Gary Bryant v. Ford Motor Co., 844 F.2d 602 (9th Cir. 1988).
“Since the affirmance penalty only applies if a trial court’s judgment is stayed pending appeal, see Ala.Code § 12-22-72 (1986), it operates to compensate a victorious appellee for the lost use of the judgment proceeds during the period of appeal.”
North Carolina Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Holley, 533 So. 2d 497 (Ala. 1988).
· cites it 2× “5 million punitive damage award is impermissible under the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment; and that lack of sufficient standards governing punitive damage awards in Alabama violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Gary Bryant v. Ford Motor Co., 832 F.2d 1080 (9th Cir. 1987).
“Since the affirmance penalty only applies if a trial court’s judgment is stayed pending appeal, see Ala.Code § 12-22-72 (1986), it operates to compensate a victorious appellee for the lost use of the judgment proceeds during the period of appeal.”
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.