Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Alabama opinions name it 4 courts 1926–2026 1 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 Greengreen2 sentences2026Being an ex parte proceeding, it is the existence of these facts presented in statutory way that gives the court jurisdiction.' [Ex parte McLendon,] 212 Ala. [403,] 405, 102 So. [696,] 698 [(1924)]."); Ex parte McLendon, 212 Ala. 403, 405 , 102 So. 696, 698 (1924); Dooley v. Dooley, 205 Ala. 281, 282 , 87 So. 545, 546 (1921) ("[T]he bill (or petition) was not sworn to nor does it contain an averment the equivalent of the requirement of the [removal] statute that testator's estate can be better administered in the circuit court in equity, and for this reason the decree cannot be referred to tha 2026Being an ex parte proceeding, it is the existence of these facts presented in statutory way that gives the court jurisdiction.' [Ex parte McLendon,] 212 Ala. [403,] 405, 102 So. [696,] 698 [(1924)]."); Ex parte McLendon, 212 Ala. 403, 405 , 102 So. 696, 698 (1924); Dooley v. Dooley, 205 Ala. 281, 282 , 87 So. 545, 546 (1921) ("[T]he bill (or petition) was not sworn to nor does it contain an averment the equivalent of the requirement of the [removal] statute that testator's estate can be better administered in the circuit court in equity, and for this reason the decree cannot be referred to tha | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte McLendongreen2 sentences2026Being an ex parte proceeding, it is the existence of these facts presented in statutory way that gives the court jurisdiction.' [Ex parte McLendon,] 212 Ala. [403,] 405, 102 So. [696,] 698 [(1924)]."); Ex parte McLendon, 212 Ala. 403, 405 , 102 So. 696, 698 (1924); Dooley v. Dooley, 205 Ala. 281, 282 , 87 So. 545, 546 (1921) ("[T]he bill (or petition) was not sworn to nor does it contain an averment the equivalent of the requirement of the [removal] statute that testator's estate can be better administered in the circuit court in equity, and for this reason the decree cannot be referred to tha 2026Being an ex parte proceeding, it is the existence of these facts presented in statutory way that gives the court jurisdiction.' [Ex parte McLendon,] 212 Ala. [403,] 405, 102 So. [696,] 698 [(1924)]."); Ex parte McLendon, 212 Ala. 403, 405 , 102 So. 696, 698 (1924); Dooley v. Dooley, 205 Ala. 281, 282 , 87 So. 545, 546 (1921) ("[T]he bill (or petition) was not sworn to nor does it contain an averment the equivalent of the requirement of the [removal] statute that testator's estate can be better administered in the circuit court in equity, and for this reason the decree cannot be referred to tha | 1 | 1 |
Dooley v. Dooleygreen2 sentences2026Being an ex parte proceeding, it is the existence of these facts presented in statutory way that gives the court jurisdiction.' [Ex parte McLendon,] 212 Ala. [403,] 405, 102 So. [696,] 698 [(1924)]."); Ex parte McLendon, 212 Ala. 403, 405 , 102 So. 696, 698 (1924); Dooley v. Dooley, 205 Ala. 281, 282 , 87 So. 545, 546 (1921) ("[T]he bill (or petition) was not sworn to nor does it contain an averment the equivalent of the requirement of the [removal] statute that testator's estate can be better administered in the circuit court in equity, and for this reason the decree cannot be referred to tha 2026Being an ex parte proceeding, it is the existence of these facts presented in statutory way that gives the court jurisdiction.' [Ex parte McLendon,] 212 Ala. [403,] 405, 102 So. [696,] 698 [(1924)]."); Ex parte McLendon, 212 Ala. 403, 405 , 102 So. 696, 698 (1924); Dooley v. Dooley, 205 Ala. 281, 282 , 87 So. 545, 546 (1921) ("[T]he bill (or petition) was not sworn to nor does it contain an averment the equivalent of the requirement of the [removal] statute that testator's estate can be better administered in the circuit court in equity, and for this reason the decree cannot be referred to tha | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bailum v. State
green
2 sentences1975Taylor v. State, 20 Ala.App. 161 , 101 So. 160 ; Bailum v. State, 17 Ala.App. 679, 88 So. 200 . 1975Taylor v. State, 20 Ala.App. 161 , 101 So. 160 ; Bailum v. State, 17 Ala.App. 679, 88 So. 200 . | 2 | 1926–1975 |
Taylor v. State
neutral
2 sentences1975Taylor v. State, 20 Ala.App. 161 , 101 So. 160 ; Bailum v. State, 17 Ala.App. 679, 88 So. 200 . 1975Taylor v. State, 20 Ala.App. 161 , 101 So. 160 ; Bailum v. State, 17 Ala.App. 679, 88 So. 200 . | 2 | 1926–1975 |
Ex Parte Riley
green
1 sentence1996Ex parte Riley, 464 So.2d 92 (Ala.1985). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Wiggins v. Wiggins
neutral
1 sentence1991Wiggins v. Wiggins, 498 So.2d 853 (Ala.Civ.App.1986). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.