41 Alabama opinions name it 4 courts 1911–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Alabama courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Ex Parte Illinois Cent. Gulf R. Co.green2 sentences1995Defendants' Meritorious Defense To establish a meritorious defense, the movant must "satisfy the trial court only *Page 4 that he is prepared to present a plausible defense, not that he would necessarily prevail at a trial on the merits." Fries Correctional Equip. v. Con-Tech, Inc. , 559 So.2d 557 , 561 (Ala. 1990), citing Ex parte Illinois Central Gulf R.R. , 514 So.2d 1283 , 1288 (Ala. 1987) (holding that a default judgment should be set aside in a situation in which the defendant's attorney who would have answered the complaint did not learn about the complaint until after the default judgm 1995Defendants' Meritorious Defense To establish a meritorious defense, the movant must "satisfy the trial court only *4 that he is prepared to present a plausible defense, not that he would necessarily prevail at a trial on the merits." Fries Correctional Equip. v. Con-Tech, Inc., 559 So.2d 557, 561 (Ala.1990), citing Ex parte Illinois Central Gulf R.R., 514 So.2d 1283 , 1288 (Ala.1987) (holding that a default judgment should be set aside in a situation in which the defendant's attorney who would have answered the complaint did not learn about the complaint until after the default judgment had be | 5 | 12 |
Sampson v. Canslergreen2 sentences2011"To present a meritorious defense, for Rule 55(c) purposes, does not require that the movant satisfy the trial court that the movant would necessarily prevail at a trial on the merits, only that the movant show the court that the movant is prepared to present a plausible defense." Sampson v. Cansler, 726 So.2d 632, 634 (Ala.1998). 2011“To present a meritorious defense, for Rule 55(c) purposes, does not require that the movant satisfy the trial court that the movant would necessarily prevail at a trial on the merits, only that the movant show the court that the movant is prepared to present a plausible defense.” Sampson v. Cansler, 726 So.2d 632, 634 (Ala.1998). | 3 | 3 |
Phillips v. Randolphgreen2 sentences2009“Merely stating that one has a meritorious defense is simply not enough.” Phillips v. Randolph, 828 So.2d 269, 274 (Ala.2002). 2009In other words, “ ‘[t]o meet this element, the appellants have the burden of satisfying the trial judge only that they are prepared to present a plausible defense, not that they would necessarily prevail at a trial on the merits.’” Phillips v. Randolph, 828 So.2d 269, 274 (Ala.2002) (quoting Storage Equities, Inc. v. Kidd, 579 So.2d 605, 607 (Ala.1991)). | 2 | 2 |
Beh, Jr. v. State Ex Rel. Mecgreen2 sentences2018M.E.C. , 71 So.3d 689 , 693 (Ala. Civ. 2018M.E.C. , 71 So.3d 689 , 693 (Ala. Civ. | 1 | 5 |
Jones v. Hydro-Wave of Alabama, Inc.green2 sentences2009To establish a meritorious defense, a defendant “must set forth with sufficient particularity a plausible defense.” Jones v. Hydro-Wave of Alabama, Inc., 524 So.2d 610, 613 (1988). 2009To establish a meritorious defense, a defendant “must set forth with sufficient particularity a plausible defense.” Jones v. Hydro-Wave of Alabama, Inc., 524 So.2d 610, 613 (1988). | 1 | 2 |
Storage Equities, Inc. v. Kiddgreen2 sentences2009In other words, “ ‘[t]o meet this element, the appellants have the burden of satisfying the trial judge only that they are prepared to present a plausible defense, not that they would necessarily prevail at a trial on the merits.’” Phillips v. Randolph, 828 So.2d 269, 274 (Ala.2002) (quoting Storage Equities, Inc. v. Kidd, 579 So.2d 605, 607 (Ala.1991)). 1993Storage Equities, Inc. v. Kidd, 579 So.2d 605 (Ala.1991). | 1 | 2 |
Fries Correctional Equip., Inc. v. Con-Tech, Inc.green2 sentences1995Defendants' Meritorious Defense To establish a meritorious defense, the movant must "satisfy the trial court only *Page 4 that he is prepared to present a plausible defense, not that he would necessarily prevail at a trial on the merits." Fries Correctional Equip. v. Con-Tech, Inc. , 559 So.2d 557 , 561 (Ala. 1990), citing Ex parte Illinois Central Gulf R.R. , 514 So.2d 1283 , 1288 (Ala. 1987) (holding that a default judgment should be set aside in a situation in which the defendant's attorney who would have answered the complaint did not learn about the complaint until after the default judgm 1995Defendants' Meritorious Defense To establish a meritorious defense, the movant must "satisfy the trial court only *4 that he is prepared to present a plausible defense, not that he would necessarily prevail at a trial on the merits." Fries Correctional Equip. v. Con-Tech, Inc., 559 So.2d 557, 561 (Ala.1990), citing Ex parte Illinois Central Gulf R.R., 514 So.2d 1283 , 1288 (Ala.1987) (holding that a default judgment should be set aside in a situation in which the defendant's attorney who would have answered the complaint did not learn about the complaint until after the default judgment had be | 1 | 2 |
DeQuesada v. DeQuesadagreen1 sentence1999See also, DeQuesada, supra. In establishing a meritorious defense, the defaulting party need not satisfy the trial court that it will prevail on the merits, only that it is prepared to present a plausible defense. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kirtland v. Fort Morgan Auth. Sewer Serv., Inc.
green
2 sentences2009The meritorious-defense factor requires that a defendant establish that he or she has a plausible defense to the action in order to “[strike] a balance between the countervailing interests of the judiciary’s need to enforce the rules of court and a litigant’s right to defend on the merits.” Kirtland, 524 So.2d at 606 . 2005Thus, the petitioners have demonstrated that they are prepared to present "a plausible defense," i.e., one of such merit that it is impossible not "to infer that allowing the defense to be litigated could foreseeably alter the outcome of the case." Kirtland, 524 So.2d at 606 . | 16 | 1989–2017 |
Bates v. Bates
green
2 sentences2018A meritorious defense in the context of a motion to set aside a default judgment " ' "does not require that the movant satisfy the trial court that the movant would necessarily prevail at a trial on the merits, only that the movant show the court that the movant is prepared to present a plausible defense." ' " Bates , 194 So.3d at 979 (quoting B.E.H. v. State ex rel. 2018A meritorious defense in the context of a motion to set aside a default judgment " ' "does not require that the movant satisfy the trial court that the movant would necessarily prevail at a trial on the merits, only that the movant show the court that the movant is prepared to present a plausible defense." ' " Bates , 194 So.3d at 979 (quoting B.E.H. v. State ex rel. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Fountain v. Permatile Concrete Products
green
2 sentences1996Fountain v. Permatile Concrete Products Co., 582 So.2d 1069 (Ala.1991). 1994Fountain v. Permatile Concrete Products, 582 So.2d 1069 (Ala.1991). | 2 | 1994–1996 |
Hopper v. Evans
green
2 sentences1985The Supreme Court specifically stated that `a defendant might make a plausible claim that he would have employed different trial tactics — for example, that he would have introduced certain evidence or requested certain jury instructions — but for the preclusion clause.' (Emphasis added.) Hopper v. Evans , 456 U.S. at 612 -13 n., 102 S.Ct. at 2053-54 n. 1984The Supreme Court specifically stated that "a defendant might make a plausible claim that he would have employed different trial tacticsfor example, that he would have introduced certain evidence or requested certain jury instructions but for the preclusion clause." (Emphasis added.) Hopper v. Evans, 456 U.S. at 612 -13 n., 102 S.Ct. at 2053 -54 n. | 2 | 1984–1985 |
Summit Photographix, Inc. v. Scott
green
1 sentence2004Kirtland , 524 So.2d at 605 ; Summit Photographix, Inc. v. Scott , 763 So.2d 956 , 959 (Ala. 2000). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
DaLee v. Crosby Lumber Co., Inc.
green
1 sentence2000(However, this Court held that DaLee was not entitled to set aside the default judgment, because he had not proved one of the grounds stated in Rule 60(b)(1).) 561 So.2d at 1090-91 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Moldwood Corporation v. A. B. Stutts, the City National Bank of Tuscaloosa, a National Banking Association v. A. B. Stutts
green
1 sentence1989If the facts in this case were indistinguishable from those in Lee , where the negligence was that of the insurer, not the insured, Appalachian still could not prevail under a Rule 60(b)(6) motion, because it did not adequately demonstrate the existence of a meritorious defense, as set forth in Kirtland , supra. 3 *Page 897 "To meet the meritorious-defense element, [Appalachian] need not satisfy the trial court that [Appalachian] would necessarily prevail at trial on the merits, only that [Appalachian] is prepared to present a plausible defense." Ex parte Illinois Central Gulf R.R. , supra. Wh | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Ex Parte Baldwin
green
1 sentence1985This should not be construed as an invitation to all defendants tried under the 1975 Death Penalty Act to defend against the capital charge anew before the appellate courts, asserting any new defense not presented at trial, without regard to whether it was one that was considered and discarded because of the preclusion clause." Ex parte Baldwin , 456 So.2d at 135 . | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Jenkins v. Lockard's Adm'r
neutral
1 sentence1911Leech v. Karthaus, supra; Miller v. Vaughan, 78 Ala. 323 ; Jenkins v. Lockhard, Adm’r. 66 Ala. 377 . | 1 | 1911–1911 |
Miller v. Vaughan
neutral
1 sentence1911Leech v. Karthaus, supra; Miller v. Vaughan, 78 Ala. 323 ; Jenkins v. Lockhard, Adm’r. 66 Ala. 377 . | 1 | 1911–1911 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.