Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 16-24-20 (2026)
Procedures Applicable to Tenure Disputes in General.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
Repealed by Act 2011-270, p. 494, §14, effective July 1, 2011.
(Act 2004-566, p. 1330, §2.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases, 2006–2009 · leading case: Montgomery Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Webb, 53 So. 3d 121 (Ala. 2009).
Montgomery Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Webb, 53 So. 3d 121 (Ala. 2009). “Webb identified the question, relating to the interpretation of § 16-24-20(c), stating: “In a proposed-termination [of employment] case, where the employer relies in part on events that already occurred in prior years, and that have not been the subject of any prior hearing, is…”
Bd. of Sch. Com'rs of Mobile Cty. v. Dunn, 962 So. 2d 805 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006). “The parties selected, pursuant to § 16-24-20(b), Ala.Code 1975, an experienced employment-law arbitrator as the hearing officer.”
Montgomery Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Webb, 53 So. 3d 96 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). “Webb filed a timely contest of the Board’s decision, after which a hearing officer was selected pursuant to § 16-24-20(b), Ala. Code 1975. The hearing officer conducted a three-day hearing on July 25-27, 2007.”
Ex Parte Wilson, 70 So. 3d 335 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). “Code 1975, provides, in pertinent part: "If notice of contest is filed pursuant to Section 16-24-9[, which concerns the cancellation of teacher contracts,] the hearing officer shall be selected as provided in subsection (b) of Section 16-24-20." Section 16-24-20(b), Ala.”
Madison Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Wilson, 70 So. 3d 335 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). “Code 1975, provides, in pertinent part: “If notice of contest is filed pursuant to Section 16-24-9[, which concerns the cancellation of teacher contracts,] the hearing officer shall be selected as provided in subsection (b) of Section 16-24-20.” Section 16-24-20(b), Ala.”
Madison Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Wilson, 14 So. 3d 158 (Ala. 2009). “Code 1975, which states that “the hearing officer shall be selected as provided in subsection (b) of Section 16-24-20.” Wilson disagreed and asserted that the matter had been remanded to be heard by the original hearing officer.”
Bd. of Sch. Commissioners v. Dunn, 962 So. 2d 814 (Ala. 2007). “Pursuant to § 16-24-20(b), the parties selected an experienced employment-law arbitrator as the hearing officer.”
Ex Parte Wilson, 14 So. 3d 158 (Ala. 2009). “Code 1975, which states that "the hearing officer shall be selected as provided in subsection (b) of Section 16-24-20." Wilson disagreed and asserted that the matter had been remanded to be heard by the original hearing officer.”
Ala. Code § 16-24-20(b): 5 cases
Bd. of Sch. Com'rs of Mobile Cty. v. Dunn, 962 So. 2d 805 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006). “The parties selected, pursuant to § 16-24-20(b), Ala.Code 1975, an experienced employment-law arbitrator as the hearing officer.”
Montgomery Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Webb, 53 So. 3d 96 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). “Webb filed a timely contest of the Board’s decision, after which a hearing officer was selected pursuant to § 16-24-20(b), Ala. Code 1975. The hearing officer conducted a three-day hearing on July 25-27, 2007.”
Ex Parte Wilson, 70 So. 3d 335 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). “Code 1975, provides, in pertinent part: "If notice of contest is filed pursuant to Section 16-24-9[, which concerns the cancellation of teacher contracts,] the hearing officer shall be selected as provided in subsection (b) of Section 16-24-20." Section 16-24-20(b), Ala.”
Bd. of Sch. Commissioners v. Dunn, 962 So. 2d 814 (Ala. 2007). “Pursuant to § 16-24-20(b), the parties selected an experienced employment-law arbitrator as the hearing officer.”
Madison Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Wilson, 70 So. 3d 335 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). “Code 1975, provides, in pertinent part: “If notice of contest is filed pursuant to Section 16-24-9[, which concerns the cancellation of teacher contracts,] the hearing officer shall be selected as provided in subsection (b) of Section 16-24-20.” Section 16-24-20(b), Ala.”
Ala. Code § 16-24-20(c): 2 cases
Montgomery Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Webb, 53 So. 3d 121 (Ala. 2009). “Webb identified the question, relating to the interpretation of § 16-24-20(c), stating: “In a proposed-termination [of employment] case, where the employer relies in part on events that already occurred in prior years, and that have not been the subject of any prior hearing, is…”
Montgomery Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Webb, 53 So. 3d 96 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). “Webb filed a timely contest of the Board’s decision, after which a hearing officer was selected pursuant to § 16-24-20(b), Ala. Code 1975. The hearing officer conducted a three-day hearing on July 25-27, 2007.”
Ala. Code § 16-24-20(e): 2 cases
Montgomery Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Webb, 53 So. 3d 121 (Ala. 2009). “Webb identified the question, relating to the interpretation of § 16-24-20(c), stating: “In a proposed-termination [of employment] case, where the employer relies in part on events that already occurred in prior years, and that have not been the subject of any prior hearing, is…”
Montgomery Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Webb, 53 So. 3d 96 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). “Webb filed a timely contest of the Board’s decision, after which a hearing officer was selected pursuant to § 16-24-20(b), Ala. Code 1975. The hearing officer conducted a three-day hearing on July 25-27, 2007.”
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.