Code of Alabama

Ala. Code § 6-6-1 (2026)

Duty of Courts to Encourage Settlement of Pending Controversies.

✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaAla. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

It is the duty of all courts to encourage the settlement of controversies pending before them by a reference thereof to arbitrators chosen by the parties or their attorneys and, on motion of the parties, must make such order and continue the case for award.

(Code 1852, §2709; Code 1867, §3148; Code 1876, §3536; Code 1886, §3221; Code 1896, §508; Code 1907, §2908; Code 1923, §6156; Code 1940, T. 7, §829.)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1982–2025 · leading case: Ex Parte Dan Tucker Auto Sales, Inc., 718 So. 2d 33 (Ala. 1998).
Ex Parte Dan Tucker Auto Sales, Inc., 718 So. 2d 33 (Ala. 1998). · cites it 3× “The legislature has discharged this duty by enacting Ala.Code 1975, § 6-6-1 et seq., to provide a system of arbitration parties may choose to avail themselves of after a dispute has arisen.”
Rogers v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 984 So. 2d 382 (Ala. 2007). · cites it 3× “In Yother , this Court distinguished arbitration clauses from appraisal clauses in a situation in which the insured contended that it was entitled to the procedural protections applicable to arbitration as set forth in § 6-6-1. The insurer contended that it was subject to the…”
Ex Parte Palm Harbor Homes, Inc., 798 So. 2d 656 (Ala. 2001). · cites it 2× “It held the Alabama Arbitration Act, Ala. Code 1975, § 6-6-1 et seq., to be applicable.”
Credigy Receivable, Inc. v. Day, 3 So. 3d 206 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). · cites it 6× “Code 1975, § 6-6-12, a part of the Alabama Arbitration Act, Ala.Code 1975, § 6-6-1 et seq., which provides: "If the award is not performed in 10 days after notice and delivery of a copy thereof, the successful party may, if an action is pending, cause the award and the file of…”
Honea v. Raymond James Fin. Servs., Inc., 240 So. 3d 550 (Ala. 2017). · cites it 3× “The second problem with RJFS's position is the notion that Honea's attempt to exercise her right to " 'de novo' review" under the arbitration agreement was the same as an "appeal" under Alabama's arbitration statutes, § 6-6-1 et seq., Ala. Code 1975. As to the first issue, this…”
Alafabco, Inc. v. Citizens Bank, 872 So. 2d 798 (Ala. 2002). · cites it 4× “Unlike predispute arbitration agreements, which contravene Ala.”
S. Energy Homes, Inc. v. Lee, 732 So. 2d 994 (Ala. 1999). · cites it 2× “[15] Ala.Code 1975, §§ 6-6-1 to 6-6-16. [16] Ala.”
Ex Parte Alabama Oxygen Co., Inc., 433 So. 2d 1158 (Ala. 1983). · cites it 2× “§§ 5701, et seq. (1974); D.C.Code Ann. §§ 16-4301, et seq.”
Raymond James Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Honea, 55 So. 3d 1161 (Ala. 2010). · cites it 2× “2002) (overruled on other grounds) (stating that where there is no evidence indicating that the parties wished to proceed in arbitration pursuant to the Alabama Arbitration Act, § 6-6-1 et seq., Ala.Code 1975 ("the AAA"), or the common law, "the parties did not contemplate…”
Robertson v. Mount Royal Towers, 134 So. 3d 862 (Ala. 2013). · cites it 2× “” We stated then: "Predispute arbitration agreements under the Alabama Arbitration Act, §§ 6-6-1 thru -16, Ala.Code 1975, contravene Alabama law and are not specifically enforceable.”
Lanier v. Old Repub. Ins., 936 F. Supp. 839 (M.D. Ala. 1996). · cites it 2× “Choice-of-law Lanier & Associates and Chattawood Insurance contend that, because the agency agreements state that Alabama law will govern disputes arising out of the contracts, the court should apply the Alabama Arbitration Act (“AAA”), Alabama Code of 1975 §§ 6-6-1 through…”
J.L. Loper Constr. Co. v. Findout P'ship, LLP, 55 So. 3d 1152 (Ala. 2010). · cites it 2× “Code 1975, a part of the Alabama Arbitration Act, § 6-6-1 et seq., Ala.Code 1975, provides: “An award made substantially in compliance with the provisions of this division is conclusive between the parties thereto and their privies as to the matter submitted and cannot be…”
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.