Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 12-3-11 (2026)
Original Jurisdiction of Courts of Appeals; Powers of Courts as to Issuance of Remedial and Original Writs and Punishment for Contempt.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
Each of the courts of appeals shall have and exercise original jurisdiction in the issuance and determination of writs of quo warranto and mandamus in relation to matters in which said court has appellate jurisdiction. Each court shall have authority to grant injunctions and issue writs of habeas corpus and such other remedial and original writs as are necessary to give it a general superintendence and control of jurisdiction inferior to it and in matters over which it has exclusive appellate jurisdiction and to punish for contempts by the infliction of a fine not exceeding $100.00 and imprisonment not exceeding 10 days, or both, and to exercise such other powers as may be given to such court by law.
(Acts 1969, No. 987, p. 1744, §4.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 46
cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case: Ex Parte Se. Alabama Med. Ctr., 835 So. 2d 1042 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002).
Ex Parte Se. Alabama Med. Ctr., 835 So. 2d 1042 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002). “SEAMC petitioned this court for a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to rescind its August 30, 2001, order.”
McMichael v. McMichael, 62 So. 3d 465 (Ala. 2010). “See § 12-3-10; § 12-3-11. C. The propriety of the Talladega Circuit Court's finding of contempt Forney argues that the Talladega Circuit Court erred by finding him in contempt of its September 28, 2009, consent order; however, Forney may not seek relief from a finding of…”
Hunt v. State, 642 So. 2d 999 (Ala. Crim. App. 1994). “Section 12-3-11, Code of Alabama 1975, provides: "Each of the courts of appeals shall have and exercise original jurisdiction in the issuance and determination of writs of quo warranto and mandamus in relation to matters in which said court has appellate jurisdiction.”
C.D.S. v. K.S.S., 978 So. 2d 782 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007). “, concurring in the result)(noting that this court has general superintendence and control of trial courts in domestic-relations matters under Ala.Code 1975, § 12-3-11). Additionally, in Ex parte Department of Mental Health, 511 So.”
Ex Parte State, 985 So. 2d 446 (Ala. 2007). “" Likewise, the Alabama Constitution and § 12-3-11 give the Court of Criminal Appeals jurisdiction to issue extraordinary writs "in relation to matters" in which that court has appellate jurisdiction.”
Ruiz v. Nat'l Dairy, LLC, 164 So. 3d 602 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014). “Alabama Code 1975, § 12-3-11, provides, in pertinent part: “Each of the courts of appeals shall have and exercise original jurisdiction in the issuance and determination of writs of quo warranto and mandamus in relation to matters in which said court has appellate jurisdiction.”
Ex Parte Shoemaker, 644 So. 2d 958 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993). “This is a petition for a writ of prohibition filed by Major Jerry Shoemaker, Chief, Alabama Bureau of Investigation, pursuant to Ala.Code 1975, § 12-3-11. From the scant information contained in the record on appeal, it appears that Loyd L.”
Ex Parte Sandifer, 925 So. 2d 290 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005). “" [6] Also, according to § 12-3-11, Ala.Code 1975, the Court of Criminal Appeals has general superintendence and control over lower courts concerning matters that fall within our appellate jurisdiction.”
Coleman v. Coleman, 864 So. 2d 371 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003). “§ 12-3-11, Ala.Code 1975. The husband filed a notice of appeal and, in the alternative, petitioned this court for a writ of mandamus.”
Habeb v. Accor North Am., Inc., 100 So. 3d 1086 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012). “That court determined that the petition fell within the jurisdiction of this court, see Ala.Code 1975, § 12-3-11, and transferred the petition to this court for consideration.”
South Alabama Skills Training Consortium v. Ford, 997 So. 2d 309 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). “” § 12-3-11. The employees’ arguments regarding the policy implications of the FDA, therefore, are unavailing.”
Abbett v. Treadwell, 816 So. 2d 477 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000). “See Ala.Code 1975, § 12-3-11. We do not comply with our statutory duty by remaining silent in the presence of fraud.”
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.