Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 30-3-26 (2026)
Simultaneous Proceedings in Other States.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
Repealed by Act 99-438, p. 866, 1999 Regular Session, effective January 1, 2000.
(Acts 1980, No. 80-92, p. 121, §6.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases, 1983–2002 · leading case: Ex Parte Punturo, 1000115 (Ala. 2-8-2002), 928 So. 2d 1030 (Ala. 2002).
Ex Parte Punturo, 1000115 (Ala. 2-8-2002), 928 So. 2d 1030 (Ala. 2002). “Moreover, "[ a] court of this state shall not exercise its jurisdiction under this article if at the time of filing the petition a proceeding concerning the custody of the child was pending in a court of another state exercising jurisdiction substantially in conformity with this…”
Ex Parte Blanton, 463 So. 2d 162 (Ala. 1985). “" Code 1975, § 30-3-26 "A court of this state shall not exercise its jurisdiction under this article if at the time of filing the petition a proceeding concerning the custody of the child was pending in a court of another state exercising jurisdiction substantially in conformity…”
White v. Blake, 859 S.W.2d 551 (Tex. App. 1993). “57 and Alabama Code, §§ 30-3-26 and 30-3-27 (1992).”
Webster v. Webster, 723 So. 2d 59 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997). “the other proceeding is pending, to the end that the issue may be litigated in the more appropriate forum and that information be exchanged in accordance with sections 30-3-39 through 30-3-42_” When she filed her answer and counterclaim to the husband’s divorce complaint, the…”
Lyon v. Lyon, 618 So. 2d 127 (Ala. Civ. App. 1992). “§ 1738A ; UCCJA, §§ 30-3-26 and -27; Whitfield v. Whitfield , 519 So.”
P.A.T. v. D.B., 638 So. 2d 905 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994). “Code 1975, § 30-3-26(a), provides that a court shall not exercise jurisdiction “if at the time of filing the petition a proceeding concerning the custody of the [children] was pending in a court of another state exercising jurisdiction substantially in conformity with this…”
Colston v. Colston, 660 So. 2d 1357 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995). “” We recognize that the mother did not inform the trial court of the existence of the North Carolina judgment at the time of the filing of her complaint, as directed by § 30-3-26. However, the court was so informed before rendering its judgment.”
Matter of McKenzie, 439 So. 2d 700 (Ala. Civ. App. 1983). “§ 30-3-26, Code 1975. Whether the petition is filed as here or under UCCJA, there must be pleading and proof that a defined emergency exists requiring the protection of the child by the courts of this state as opposed to the courts of another state where there is an order in…”
Lyon v. Lyon, 662 So. 2d 285 (Ala. Ct. App. 1995). “§ 1738A, and the UCCJA, §§ 30-3-26 and -27. Lyon v. Lyon, 618 So.”
L.L. v. St. Clair Cnty. Dep't of Human Resources, 659 So. 2d 618 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994). “Ala.Code 1975, § 30-3-26(a), provides that a court shall not exercise jurisdiction “if at the time of filing the petition a proceeding concerning the custody of the [children] was pending in a court of another state exercising jurisdiction substantially in conformity with this…”
Pat v. Db, 638 So. 2d 905 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994). “Ala. Code 1975, § 30-3-26(a), provides that a court shall not exercise jurisdiction "if at the time of filing the petition a proceeding concerning the custody of the [children] was pending in a court of another state exercising jurisdiction substantially in conformity with this…”
Reyner v. Reyner, 646 So. 2d 118 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994). “” § 30-3-26(e). We conclude that the trial judge acted in accordance with the Act.”
— Ala. Code § 30-3-26(a) — 5 cases
Ex Parte Punturo, 1000115 (Ala. 2-8-2002), 928 So. 2d 1030 (Ala. 2002). “Moreover, "[ a] court of this state shall not exercise its jurisdiction under this article if at the time of filing the petition a proceeding concerning the custody of the child was pending in a court of another state exercising jurisdiction substantially in conformity with this…”
P.A.T. v. D.B., 638 So. 2d 905 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994). “Code 1975, § 30-3-26(a), provides that a court shall not exercise jurisdiction “if at the time of filing the petition a proceeding concerning the custody of the [children] was pending in a court of another state exercising jurisdiction substantially in conformity with this…”
Webster v. Webster, 723 So. 2d 59 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997). “the other proceeding is pending, to the end that the issue may be litigated in the more appropriate forum and that information be exchanged in accordance with sections 30-3-39 through 30-3-42_” When she filed her answer and counterclaim to the husband’s divorce complaint, the…”
L.L. v. St. Clair Cnty. Dep't of Human Resources, 659 So. 2d 618 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994). “Ala.Code 1975, § 30-3-26(a), provides that a court shall not exercise jurisdiction “if at the time of filing the petition a proceeding concerning the custody of the [children] was pending in a court of another state exercising jurisdiction substantially in conformity with this…”
Pat v. Db, 638 So. 2d 905 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994). “Ala. Code 1975, § 30-3-26(a), provides that a court shall not exercise jurisdiction "if at the time of filing the petition a proceeding concerning the custody of the [children] was pending in a court of another state exercising jurisdiction substantially in conformity with this…”
— Ala. Code § 30-3-26(c) — 2 cases
Webster v. Webster, 723 So. 2d 59 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997). “the other proceeding is pending, to the end that the issue may be litigated in the more appropriate forum and that information be exchanged in accordance with sections 30-3-39 through 30-3-42_” When she filed her answer and counterclaim to the husband’s divorce complaint, the…”
Colston v. Colston, 660 So. 2d 1357 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995). “” We recognize that the mother did not inform the trial court of the existence of the North Carolina judgment at the time of the filing of her complaint, as directed by § 30-3-26. However, the court was so informed before rendering its judgment.”
— Ala. Code § 30-3-26(e) — 1 case
Reyner v. Reyner, 646 So. 2d 118 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994). “” § 30-3-26(e). We conclude that the trial judge acted in accordance with the Act.”
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.