Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 8-26A-16 (2026)
Civil Remedies.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
Repealed by Act 2016-415, §2, effective October 1, 2016.
(Act 2001-701, p. 1494, §1.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases, 2007–2010 · leading case: Griffin v. Unocal Corp., 990 So. 2d 291 (Ala. 2008).
Griffin v. Unocal Corp., 990 So. 2d 291 (Ala. 2008). “I reaffirm that creation of a discovery rule lies within the province of the legislature, which is equipped to weigh the competing public-policy arguments and to fashion variations of discovery principles tailored to the particular nature of each affected cause of action. The…”
Cline v. Ashland, Inc., 970 So. 2d 755 (Ala. 2007). “I reaffirm that creation of a discovery rule lies within the province of the legislature, which is equipped to weigh the competing public-policy arguments and to fashion variations of discovery principles tailored to the particular nature of each affected cause of action. The…”
Coilplus-Alabama, Inc. v. Vann, 53 So. 3d 898 (Ala. 2010). “…in the following statutes: § 6-2-3; § 6 — 2—30(b); § 6-5-482; § 6-5-502(b); § 6-5-57U(a); § 7-2A-506(2); § 8-19-14; § 8-26A-16(c); and § 8-27-5.” 990 So.2d at 310-11 (emphasis added). With regard to Coilplus’s fraud claim, § 6-5-574(a) is “subject to all existing provisions…”
— Ala. Code § 8-26A-16(c) — 3 cases
Griffin v. Unocal Corp., 990 So. 2d 291 (Ala. 2008). “I reaffirm that creation of a discovery rule lies within the province of the legislature, which is equipped to weigh the competing public-policy arguments and to fashion variations of discovery principles tailored to the particular nature of each affected cause of action. The…”
Cline v. Ashland, Inc., 970 So. 2d 755 (Ala. 2007). “I reaffirm that creation of a discovery rule lies within the province of the legislature, which is equipped to weigh the competing public-policy arguments and to fashion variations of discovery principles tailored to the particular nature of each affected cause of action. The…”
Coilplus-Alabama, Inc. v. Vann, 53 So. 3d 898 (Ala. 2010). “…in the following statutes: § 6-2-3; § 6 — 2—30(b); § 6-5-482; § 6-5-502(b); § 6-5-57U(a); § 7-2A-506(2); § 8-19-14; § 8-26A-16(c); and § 8-27-5.” 990 So.2d at 310-11 (emphasis added). With regard to Coilplus’s fraud claim, § 6-5-574(a) is “subject to all existing provisions…”
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.