scintilla rule in Alabama

1992In Bradford v. McGee , 534 So.2d 1076 , 1079 (Ala. 1988), this Court set out the standard of review and the law governing actions brought under the Medical Liability Act: " ' "A motion for directed verdict or J.N.O.V. is tested against the scintilla rule, which requires that a question go to the jury 'if the evidence or any reasonable inference arising therefrom, furnishes [so much as] a mere gleam, glimmer, spark, the least particle, the smallest trace, or a scintilla in support of the theory of the complaint.' Alabama Power Co. v. Taylor , 293 Ala. 484 , 306 So.2d 236 (1975).

1992In Bradford v. McGee , 534 So.2d 1076 , 1079 (Ala. 1988), this Court set out the standard of review and the law governing actions brought under the Medical Liability Act: " ' "A motion for directed verdict or J.N.O.V. is tested against the scintilla rule, which requires that a question go to the jury 'if the evidence or any reasonable inference arising therefrom, furnishes [so much as] a mere gleam, glimmer, spark, the least particle, the smallest trace, or a scintilla in support of the theory of the complaint.' Alabama Power Co. v. Taylor , 293 Ala. 484 , 306 So.2d 236 (1975).

1992Baker v. Chastain , 389 So.2d 932 (Ala. 1980).

1991Baker v. Chastain , 389 So.2d 932 (Ala. 1980).

1969Moreover, after the prosecution has made a prima facie case beyond the scintilla rule (Ex parte Grimmett, 228 Ala. 1 , 152 So. 263 ), the allegation of inherent contradiction raises by its very pronouncement a doubt as to what further proof might have been brought out by additional cross-examination. hi Self-explanatorily, Pinto v. Pierce, 389 U. S. 31 , 88 S.Ct. 192 , 19 L.Ed.2d 31 says: “ * * * the trial court had heard in the presence of the jury testimony regarding the voluntariness of an incriminating statement sought to be introduced by the prosecution, * * * “ * * * This Court has never

1969Moreover, after the prosecution has made a prima facie case beyond the scintilla rule (Ex parte Grimmett, 228 Ala. 1 , 152 So. 263 ), the allegation of inherent contradiction raises by its very pronouncement a doubt as to what further proof might have been brought out by additional cross-examination. hi Self-explanatorily, Pinto v. Pierce, 389 U. S. 31 , 88 S.Ct. 192 , 19 L.Ed.2d 31 says: “ * * * the trial court had heard in the presence of the jury testimony regarding the voluntariness of an incriminating statement sought to be introduced by the prosecution, * * * “ * * * This Court has never

1989Arrington v. Working Woman's Home, 368 So.2d 851 (Ala.1979); Oliver v. Brock, 342 So.2d 1 (Ala. [1977]).'" The "scintilla rule" was abolished by the Legislature in civil actions brought in any court of the State of Alabama after June 11, 1987.

1985Arrington v. Working Woman's Home , 368 So.2d 851 (Ala. 1979); Oliver v. Brock , 342 So.2d 1 (Ala. 1977).' 402 So.2d at 952 .

1977In Willcutt v. State, 284 Ala. 547 , 226 So.2d 328 , the Supreme Court held: “The scintilla rule does not apply in criminal cases.

1977In Willcutt v. State, 284 Ala. 547 , 226 So.2d 328 , the Supreme Court held: “The scintilla rule does not apply in criminal cases.

1987Turner v. Peoples Bank , 378 So.2d 706 (Ala. 1979).

1987Turner v. Peoples Bank, 378 So.2d 706 (Ala.1979).

1970In the case of Rota v. Combs, 267 Ala. 50 , 99 So.2d 692 (1958), we said: “ * * * We recognize, of course, that * * * the scintilla doctrine prevails in this state, but this does not at all conflict with the equally well-known rule that a conclusion as to liability which rests upon speculation pure and simple is not the proper basis for a verdict.’ * * *” As to the question of subsequent negligence on the part of Cox, we must note that there is nothing in the record to show that the defendant had actual knowledge of the car’s position at the intersection.

1970In the case of Rota v. Combs, 267 Ala. 50 , 99 So.2d 692 (1958), we said: “ * * * We recognize, of course, that * * * the scintilla doctrine prevails in this state, but this does not at all conflict with the equally well-known rule that a conclusion as to liability which rests upon speculation pure and simple is not the proper basis for a verdict.’ * * *” As to the question of subsequent negligence on the part of Cox, we must note that there is nothing in the record to show that the defendant had actual knowledge of the car’s position at the intersection.

1957“We recognize, of course, that * * * the scintilla doctrine prevails in this state, but this does not at all conflict with the equally well-known rule that a conclusion as to liability which rests upon speculation pure and simple is not the proper basis for a verdict.” Continental Casualty Co. v. Paul, 209 Ala. 166 , 95 So. 814, 815 , 30 A.L.R. 802 .

1957“We recognize, of course, that * * * the scintilla doctrine prevails in this state, but this does not at all conflict with the equally well-known rule that a conclusion as to liability which rests upon speculation pure and simple is not the proper basis for a verdict.” Continental Casualty Co. v. Paul, 209 Ala. 166 , 95 So. 814, 815 , 30 A.L.R. 802 .

1990McMurphy v. State , 455 So.2d 924 , 928 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984); Craig v. State , 410 So.2d 449 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982). 'Intent can only be shown by facts and circumstances from which the jury is authorized to draw the inference.' Burk v. State , 22 Ala. App. 107 , 108 , 114 So. 71 , cert. denied, 216 Ala. 655 , 114 So. 72 (1927). 'The scintilla rule does not apply in a criminal case.' McArdle v. State , 372 So.2d 897 , 901 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 372 So.2d 902 (Ala. 1979). 'Intent, . . . being a state or condition of the mind, is rarely, if ever, susceptible of direct or positive proof, and must

1986"The scintilla rule does not apply in a criminal case." McArdle v. State , 372 So.2d 897 , 901 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 372 So.2d 902 (Ala. 1979).

1990McMurphy v. State , 455 So.2d 924 , 928 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984); Craig v. State , 410 So.2d 449 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982). 'Intent can only be shown by facts and circumstances from which the jury is authorized to draw the inference.' Burk v. State , 22 Ala. App. 107 , 108 , 114 So. 71 , cert. denied, 216 Ala. 655 , 114 So. 72 (1927). 'The scintilla rule does not apply in a criminal case.' McArdle v. State , 372 So.2d 897 , 901 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 372 So.2d 902 (Ala. 1979). 'Intent, . . . being a state or condition of the mind, is rarely, if ever, susceptible of direct or positive proof, and must

1986"The scintilla rule does not apply in a criminal case." McArdle v. State , 372 So.2d 897 , 901 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 372 So.2d 902 (Ala. 1979).

1988Chiniche v. Smith , 374 So.2d 872 (Ala. 1979)." Jarrard v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. , 495 So.2d 584 , 585-86 (Ala. 1986).

1988Chiniche v. Smith, 374 So.2d 872 (Ala.1979).

1987Browning v. Birmingham News, 348 So.2d 455 (Ala.1977); Folmar v. Montgomery Fair Co., 298 Ala. 686 , 309 So.2d 818 (1975).

1982Browning v. Birmingham News , 348 So.2d 455 (Ala. 1977); Folmar v. Montgomery Fair Co. , 293 Ala. 686 , 309 So.2d 818 (1975).

1979We believe, after viewing the tendencies of the evidence in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion for a directed verdict, Beloit Corp. v. Harrell, 339 So.2d 992 (Ala.1976), and in accordance with the scintilla rule, Rule 50(e), ARCP; Loeb and Co., Inc. v. Martin, 295 Ala. 262 , 327 So.2d 711 (1976); that the trial court erred in refusing to let the jury consider the appellant’s counterclaim against the Bank.

1979We believe, after viewing the tendencies of the evidence in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion for a directed verdict, Beloit Corp. v. Harrell, 339 So.2d 992 (Ala.1976), and in accordance with the scintilla rule, Rule 50(e), ARCP; Loeb and Co., Inc. v. Martin, 295 Ala. 262 , 327 So.2d 711 (1976); that the trial court erred in refusing to let the jury consider the appellant’s counterclaim against the Bank.

1984The degree of persuasion — clear, full and satisfactory — entails more than that enunciated in the scintilla rule. ‘Clear’ is highly exacting as to proof of facts and always means more than ‘reasonably satisfying.’ Burden v. State, 52 Ala.App. 348 , 292 So.2d 463 (1974).” Lewis v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 367 So.2d 542, 545 (1979).

1984The degree of persuasion — clear, full and satisfactory — entails more than that enunciated in the scintilla rule. ‘Clear’ is highly exacting as to proof of facts and always means more than ‘reasonably satisfying.’ Burden v. State, 52 Ala.App. 348 , 292 So.2d 463 (1974).” Lewis v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 367 So.2d 542, 545 (1979).

1983White v. Packer, supra; McLarty v. Wright , 56 Ala. App. 346 , 321 So.2d 687 (1975)." Citing Hornaday v. First National Bank of Birmingham , 259 Ala. 26 , 65 So.2d 678 (1952), Contestants, arguing for JNOV, insist that, because of the confidential relationship between mother and son, they need to prove only constructive fraud, as opposed to the higher burden of proving actual fraud, in order to invalidate the 1977 will.

1982White v. Packer, supra; McLarty v. Wright , 56 Ala. App. 346 , 321 So.2d 687 (1975).

1981The appellate court must, therefore, examine the record to see if there exists ". . . a mere gleam, glimmer, spark, the least particle, the smallest trace, or a scintilla in support of the theory of the complaint. . . ." Kilcrease v. Harris , 288 Ala. 245 , 252 , 259 So.2d 797 , 802 (1972).

1981The appellate court must, therefore, examine the record to see if there exists ". . . a mere gleam, glimmer, spark, the least particle, the smallest trace, or a scintilla in support of the theory of the complaint. . . ." Kilcrease v. Harris , 288 Ala. 245 , 252 , 259 So.2d 797 , 802 (1972).

1963The scintilla rule prevails in Alabama, in civil cases, and if there was a mere gleam, glimmer, spark or the smallest trace or a scintilla of evidence or inference to be drawn therefrom in support of the theory of defendant’s liability, a case must go to the jury. — Louis Pizitz Dry Goods Co. v. Harris, 270 Ala. 390 , 118 So.2d 727 ; Southern Apartments, Inc. v. Emmett, 269 Ala. 584 , 114 So.2d 453 ; Pappa v. Bonner, 268 Ala. 185 , 105 So.2d 87 ; Chesser v. Williams, 268 Ala. 57 , 104 So.2d 918 ; Alabama Great Southern R.

1963The scintilla rule prevails in Alabama, in civil cases, and if there was a mere gleam, glimmer, spark or the smallest trace or a scintilla of evidence or inference to be drawn therefrom in support of the theory of defendant’s liability, a case must go to the jury. — Louis Pizitz Dry Goods Co. v. Harris, 270 Ala. 390 , 118 So.2d 727 ; Southern Apartments, Inc. v. Emmett, 269 Ala. 584 , 114 So.2d 453 ; Pappa v. Bonner, 268 Ala. 185 , 105 So.2d 87 ; Chesser v. Williams, 268 Ala. 57 , 104 So.2d 918 ; Alabama Great Southern R.