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.
20 Alabama opinions name it 3 courts 1986–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Greene v. Thompsongreen2 sentences2024P., and citing Greene v. Thompson, 554 So. 2d 376, 380-81 (Ala. 1989), and Walls v. Bank of Prattville, 554 So. 2d 381, 382 (Ala. 1989)). 'If the failure to conduct a hearing did not " 'injuriously affect[] [the] substantial rights of the parties,' " that failure, while error, was harmless.' DWOC, LLC v. TRX Alliance, Inc., 99 So. 3d 1233, 1236 (Ala. Civ. 2018P., and citing Greene v. Thompson , 554 So.2d 376 , 380-81 (Ala. 1989), and Walls v. Bank of Prattville , 554 So.2d 381 , 382 (Ala. 1989) ). 'If the failure to conduct a hearing did not " 'injuriously affect[ ] [the] substantial rights of the parties,' " that failure, while error, was harmless.' DWOC, LLC v. TRX Alliance, Inc. , 99 So.3d 1233 , 1236 (Ala. Civ. | 5 | 10 |
Kitchens v. Mayegreen2 sentences2013“If the failure to conduct a hearing did not ‘ “injuriously affect[ ] [the] substantial rights of the parties,” ’ that failure, while error, was harmless.” DWOC, LLC v. TRX Alliance, Inc., 99 So.3d 1233, 1236 (Ala.Civ.App.2012) (quoting Kitchens, 623 So.2d at 1088 ). 2008However, the failure to conduct a hearing on a post-judgment motion “is reversible error only if it ‘probably injuriously affected substantial rights of the parties.’ ” Kitchens v. Maye, 623 So.2d 1082, 1088 (Ala.1993) (quoting Greene v. Thompson, 554 So.2d 376, 380-81 (Ala.1989)). | 4 | 11 |
DWOC, LLC v. TRX Alliance, Inc.green2 sentences2024P., and citing Greene v. Thompson, 554 So. 2d 376, 380-81 (Ala. 1989), and Walls v. Bank of Prattville, 554 So. 2d 381, 382 (Ala. 1989)). 'If the failure to conduct a hearing did not " 'injuriously affect[] [the] substantial rights of the parties,' " that failure, while error, was harmless.' DWOC, LLC v. TRX Alliance, Inc., 99 So. 3d 1233, 1236 (Ala. Civ. 2018P., and citing Greene v. Thompson , 554 So.2d 376 , 380-81 (Ala. 1989), and Walls v. Bank of Prattville , 554 So.2d 381 , 382 (Ala. 1989) ). 'If the failure to conduct a hearing did not " 'injuriously affect[ ] [the] substantial rights of the parties,' " that failure, while error, was harmless.' DWOC, LLC v. TRX Alliance, Inc. , 99 So.3d 1233 , 1236 (Ala. Civ. | 4 | 7 |
Historic Blakely Authority v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2007P., and Historic Blakely Authority v. Williams, 675 So.2d 350, 352 (Ala.1995) (a case holding that, under certain circumstances, the failure to conduct a hearing pursuant to Rule 59(g), Ala. R. 2007P., and Historic Blakely Authority v. Williams, 675 So.2d 350, 352 (Ala.1995) (a case holding that, under certain circumstances, the failure to conduct a hearing pursuant to Rule 59(g), Ala. R. | 2 | 2 |
Walls v. Bank of Prattvillegreen2 sentences2024P., and citing Greene v. Thompson, 554 So. 2d 376, 380-81 (Ala. 1989), and Walls v. Bank of Prattville, 554 So. 2d 381, 382 (Ala. 1989)). 'If the failure to conduct a hearing did not " 'injuriously affect[] [the] substantial rights of the parties,' " that failure, while error, was harmless.' DWOC, LLC v. TRX Alliance, Inc., 99 So. 3d 1233, 1236 (Ala. Civ. 2018P., and citing Greene v. Thompson , 554 So.2d 376 , 380-81 (Ala. 1989), and Walls v. Bank of Prattville , 554 So.2d 381 , 382 (Ala. 1989) ). 'If the failure to conduct a hearing did not " 'injuriously affect[ ] [the] substantial rights of the parties,' " that failure, while error, was harmless.' DWOC, LLC v. TRX Alliance, Inc. , 99 So.3d 1233 , 1236 (Ala. Civ. | 1 | 4 |
Lightsey v. Bessemer Clinic, P.A.green1 sentence2015See Lightsey v. Bessemer Clinic, P.A., 495 So.2d 35, 38 (Ala. 1986) (stating that, while “Rule 56(c) does by its language contemplate a hearing upon a motion for summary judgment,” the failure of the trial court to hold a hearing was harmless); cf. Hilliard v. SouthTrust Bank of Alabama, N.A., 581 So.2d 826, 828 (Ala.1991). | 1 | 1 |
Hillard v. Southtrust Bank of Alabama, N.A.green1 sentence2015See Lightsey v. Bessemer Clinic, P.A., 495 So.2d 35, 38 (Ala. 1986) (stating that, while “Rule 56(c) does by its language contemplate a hearing upon a motion for summary judgment,” the failure of the trial court to hold a hearing was harmless); cf. Hilliard v. SouthTrust Bank of Alabama, N.A., 581 So.2d 826, 828 (Ala.1991). | 1 | 1 |
Hollander v. Nicholsgreen1 sentence2013Because the trial court erred in failing to allow Terminix to be heard on its postjudgment motion to vacate the arbitration judgment, we must determine whether the failure to conduct a hearing on the motion was “harmless error.” “ ‘ “ ‘Harmless error occurs, within the context of a Rule 59(g) motion, where there is either no probable merit in the grounds asserted in the motion, or where the appellate court resolves the issues presented therein, as a matter of law, adversely to the movant, by application of the same objective standard of review as that applied in the trial court.’ ” ’ ” Ware v. | 1 | 1 |
Ware v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 1100822 (Ala. 6-17-2011)green1 sentence2013Because the trial court erred in failing to allow Terminix to be heard on its postjudgment motion to vacate the arbitration judgment, we must determine whether the failure to conduct a hearing on the motion was “harmless error.” “ ‘ “ ‘Harmless error occurs, within the context of a Rule 59(g) motion, where there is either no probable merit in the grounds asserted in the motion, or where the appellate court resolves the issues presented therein, as a matter of law, adversely to the movant, by application of the same objective standard of review as that applied in the trial court.’ ” ’ ” Ware v. | 1 | 1 |
Atwell v. Stategreen1 sentence1986Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 , 86 S.Ct. 836 , 15 L.Ed.2d 815 (1966). "`(W)hen facts are present before the trial judge which create a reasonable and bona fide doubt as to the mental competency of the accused to stand trial, there is no question but that the trial judge must take steps to assure a reasonable legal determination of such questions.' Atwell v. State, 354 So.2d 30, 35 (Ala. Crim.App.1977), cert. denied, Ex parte Atwell, 354 So.2d 39 (Ala.1978). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Frazier v. Curry
neutral
2 sentences2018App. 2012) (quoting Kitchens , 623 So.2d at 1088 )." Frazier v. Curry , 119 So.3d 1195 , 1198 (Ala. Civ. 2018App. 2012) (quoting Kitchens , 623 So.2d at 1088 )." Frazier v. Curry , 119 So.3d 1195 , 1198 (Ala. Civ. | 3 | 2017–2018 |
Henderson v. Henderson
green
1 sentence2024App. 2012)." 123 So. 3d at 978-79 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Chism v. Jefferson County
green
1 sentence2016Failure to Hold a Hearing on the Mother’s Postjudgment Motion Finally, the mother asserts that the juvenile court erred in allegedly failing to hold a hearing on the mother’s post-judgment motion. 3 In Chism v. Jefferson County, 954 So.2d 1058 (Ala.2006), our supreme court acknowledged that the failure to conduct a hearing on a postjudgment motion under Rule 59(g), Ala. R. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Waverlee Homes, Inc. v. McMichael
green
1 sentence2013A. Simon’s Alleged Evident Partiality In Waverlee Homes, Inc. v. McMichael, 855 So.2d 493 (Ala.2003), this Court considered for the first time a postjudgment attack on a final judgment entered upon an arbitration award based on the defendant’s postjudgment submission of evidence that the award was the result of bias on the part of the arbitrator. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Pate v. Robinson
green
2 sentences1986Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 , 86 S.Ct. 836 , 15 L.Ed.2d 815 (1966). "`(W)hen facts are present before the trial judge which create a reasonable and bona fide doubt as to the mental competency of the accused to stand trial, there is no question but that the trial judge must take steps to assure a reasonable legal determination of such questions.' Atwell v. State, 354 So.2d 30, 35 (Ala. Crim.App.1977), cert. denied, Ex parte Atwell, 354 So.2d 39 (Ala.1978). 1986Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 , 86 S.Ct. 836 , 15 L.Ed.2d 815 (1966). "`(W)hen facts are present before the trial judge which create a reasonable and bona fide doubt as to the mental competency of the accused to stand trial, there is no question but that the trial judge must take steps to assure a reasonable legal determination of such questions.' Atwell v. State, 354 So.2d 30, 35 (Ala. Crim.App.1977), cert. denied, Ex parte Atwell, 354 So.2d 39 (Ala.1978). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Ex Parte Atwell
green
1 sentence1986Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 , 86 S.Ct. 836 , 15 L.Ed.2d 815 (1966). "`(W)hen facts are present before the trial judge which create a reasonable and bona fide doubt as to the mental competency of the accused to stand trial, there is no question but that the trial judge must take steps to assure a reasonable legal determination of such questions.' Atwell v. State, 354 So.2d 30, 35 (Ala. Crim.App.1977), cert. denied, Ex parte Atwell, 354 So.2d 39 (Ala.1978). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.