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.
21 Alabama opinions name it 3 courts 2002–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rector v. Better Houses, Inc.green2 sentences2014This rule fails in application only where due-process constraints require some notice at the trial level, %ohich teas omitted, of the basis that would other-, wise support an affirmance, such as when a totally omitted affirmative defense might, if available for consideration, suffice to affirm a judgment, Ameriquest Mortgage Co. v. Bentley, 851 So.2d 458 (Ala.2002), or where a summary-judgment movant has not asserted before the trial court a failure of the nonmovant’s evidence on an element of a claim or defense and therefore has not shifted the burden of producing substantial evidence in supp 2014This rule fails in .application only where due-process constraints require some notice at -the trial level, which was omitted, of the basis that would otherwise support an affirmance, such as when a totally omitted affirmative defense might, if available for consideration, suffice to- affirm a judgment, Ameriquest Mortgage Co. v. Bentley, 851 So.2d 458 (Ala.2002), or where a summary-judgment movant has not asserted before the trial court a failure of the nonmovant’s evidence on an element of a claim or defense and therefore has not. shifted the burden of producing substantial evidence in suppo | 12 | 14 |
Liberty Nat. v. Univ. of Ala. Health Servs.green2 sentences2014This rule fails in application only where due-process constraints require some notice at the trial level, %ohich teas omitted, of the basis that would other-, wise support an affirmance, such as when a totally omitted affirmative defense might, if available for consideration, suffice to affirm a judgment, Ameriquest Mortgage Co. v. Bentley, 851 So.2d 458 (Ala.2002), or where a summary-judgment movant has not asserted before the trial court a failure of the nonmovant’s evidence on an element of a claim or defense and therefore has not shifted the burden of producing substantial evidence in supp 2014This rule fails in .application only where due-process constraints require some notice at -the trial level, which was omitted, of the basis that would otherwise support an affirmance, such as when a totally omitted affirmative defense might, if available for consideration, suffice to- affirm a judgment, Ameriquest Mortgage Co. v. Bentley, 851 So.2d 458 (Ala.2002), or where a summary-judgment movant has not asserted before the trial court a failure of the nonmovant’s evidence on an element of a claim or defense and therefore has not. shifted the burden of producing substantial evidence in suppo | 6 | 9 |
Ameriquest Mortg. Co., Inc. v. Bentleygreen2 sentences2014This rule fails in application only where due-process constraints require some notice at the trial level, %ohich teas omitted, of the basis that would other-, wise support an affirmance, such as when a totally omitted affirmative defense might, if available for consideration, suffice to affirm a judgment, Ameriquest Mortgage Co. v. Bentley, 851 So.2d 458 (Ala.2002), or where a summary-judgment movant has not asserted before the trial court a failure of the nonmovant’s evidence on an element of a claim or defense and therefore has not shifted the burden of producing substantial evidence in supp 2014This rule fails in .application only where due-process constraints require some notice at -the trial level, which was omitted, of the basis that would otherwise support an affirmance, such as when a totally omitted affirmative defense might, if available for consideration, suffice to- affirm a judgment, Ameriquest Mortgage Co. v. Bentley, 851 So.2d 458 (Ala.2002), or where a summary-judgment movant has not asserted before the trial court a failure of the nonmovant’s evidence on an element of a claim or defense and therefore has not. shifted the burden of producing substantial evidence in suppo | 3 | 18 |
AG v. Stategreen2 sentences2014This rule fails in application only where due-process constraints require some notice at the trial level, %ohich teas omitted, of the basis that would other-, wise support an affirmance, such as when a totally omitted affirmative defense might, if available for consideration, suffice to affirm a judgment, Ameriquest Mortgage Co. v. Bentley, 851 So.2d 458 (Ala.2002), or where a summary-judgment movant has not asserted before the trial court a failure of the nonmovant’s evidence on an element of a claim or defense and therefore has not shifted the burden of producing substantial evidence in supp 2014This rule fails in .application only where due-process constraints require some notice at -the trial level, which was omitted, of the basis that would otherwise support an affirmance, such as when a totally omitted affirmative defense might, if available for consideration, suffice to- affirm a judgment, Ameriquest Mortgage Co. v. Bentley, 851 So.2d 458 (Ala.2002), or where a summary-judgment movant has not asserted before the trial court a failure of the nonmovant’s evidence on an element of a claim or defense and therefore has not. shifted the burden of producing substantial evidence in suppo | 2 | 2 |
Kennedy v. Western Sizzlin Corp.green2 sentences2014This rule fails in application only where due-process constraints require some notice at the trial level, %ohich teas omitted, of the basis that would other-, wise support an affirmance, such as when a totally omitted affirmative defense might, if available for consideration, suffice to affirm a judgment, Ameriquest Mortgage Co. v. Bentley, 851 So.2d 458 (Ala.2002), or where a summary-judgment movant has not asserted before the trial court a failure of the nonmovant’s evidence on an element of a claim or defense and therefore has not shifted the burden of producing substantial evidence in supp 2014This rule fails in .application only where due-process constraints require some notice at -the trial level, which was omitted, of the basis that would otherwise support an affirmance, such as when a totally omitted affirmative defense might, if available for consideration, suffice to- affirm a judgment, Ameriquest Mortgage Co. v. Bentley, 851 So.2d 458 (Ala.2002), or where a summary-judgment movant has not asserted before the trial court a failure of the nonmovant’s evidence on an element of a claim or defense and therefore has not. shifted the burden of producing substantial evidence in suppo | 1 | 14 |
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of Catrettgreen2 sentences2014This rule fails in .application only where due-process constraints require some notice at -the trial level, which was omitted, of the basis that would otherwise support an affirmance, such as when a totally omitted affirmative defense might, if available for consideration, suffice to- affirm a judgment, Ameriquest Mortgage Co. v. Bentley, 851 So.2d 458 (Ala.2002), or where a summary-judgment movant has not asserted before the trial court a failure of the nonmovant’s evidence on an element of a claim or defense and therefore has not. shifted the burden of producing substantial evidence in suppo 2014This rule fails in .application only where due-process constraints require some notice at -the trial level, which was omitted, of the basis that would otherwise support an affirmance, such as when a totally omitted affirmative defense might, if available for consideration, suffice to- affirm a judgment, Ameriquest Mortgage Co. v. Bentley, 851 So.2d 458 (Ala.2002), or where a summary-judgment movant has not asserted before the trial court a failure of the nonmovant’s evidence on an element of a claim or defense and therefore has not. shifted the burden of producing substantial evidence in suppo | 1 | 14 |
McNabb v. Stategreen2 sentences2014See also McNabb v. State, 991 So.2d 313, 335 (Ala.Crim.App.2007)(This court may sua sponte apply the specificity requirement contained in Rule 32.6(b), Ala. R.Crim. 2009This rule fails in application only where due-process constraints require some notice at the trial level, which was omitted, of the basis that would otherwise support an affirmance, such as when a totally omitted affirmative defense might, if available for consideration, suffice to affirm a judgment, Ameriquest Mortgage Co. v. Bentley, 851 So.2d 458 (Ala.2002), or where a summary-judgment movant has not asserted before the trial court a failure of the nonmovant’s evidence on an element of a claim or defense and therefore has not shifted the burden of producing substantial evidence in support o | 1 | 2 |
Warren v. Hoopergreen2 sentences2014Co. v.] University of Alabama Health Servs. [Found., P.C.], 881 So. 2d [1013] at 1020 [(Ala. 2003)] (citations omitted)." Warren v. Hooper, 984 So. 2d 1118, 1121 (Ala. 2007). 48 1110423 who is entitled to assert a claim that the 2004 settlement agreement has been breached. 2014Co. v.] University of Alabama Health Servs. [Found., P.C.], 881 So.2d [1013] at 1020 [(Ala.2003)] (citations omitted).” Warren v. Hooper, 984 So.2d 1118, 1121 (Ala.2007). . | 1 | 1 |
Flagstar Enterprises, Inc. v. Davisgreen1 sentence2004See, e.g., Flagstar Enters., Inc. v. Davis , 709 So.2d 1132 (Ala. 1997). 7 "This rule fails in application only where due-process constraints require some notice at the trial level, which was omitted, of the basis that would otherwise support an affirmance, such as when a totally omitted affirmative defense might, if available for consideration, suffice to affirm a judgment, Ameriquest Mortgage Co. v. Bentley , 851 So.2d 458 (Ala. 2002), or where a summary-judgment movant has not asserted before the trial court a failure of the nonmovant's evidence on an element of a claim or defense and there | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Smith v. Equifax Services, Inc.
green
2 sentences2014Co. v. Bentley, 851 So.2d 458, 465 (Ala.2002) (“This Court can affirm the judgment of a trial court on a basis different from the one on which it ruled, Smith v. Equifax, 537 So.2d 463 (Ala.1988), but the constraints of procedural due process prevent us from extending that principle to a totally omitted affirmative defense.”). 5 . 2010This Court can affirm the judgment of a trial court on a basis different from the one on which it ruled, Smith v. Equifax, 537 So.2d 463 (Ala.1988), but the constraints of procedural due process prevent us from extending that principle to a totally omitted affirmative defense. | 3 | 2002–2014 |
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.