19 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1935–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Chevron Oil Co. v. Husonred2 sentences2009In Griffin v. Unocal Corp., 990 So.2d 291 (Ala.2008), the County says, this Court embraced the three factors outlined in Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97, 106-07 , 92 S.Ct. 349 , 30 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971), for determining whether a decision should be applied prospectively: first, the decision “must establish a new principle of law, either by overruling clear past precedent on which litigants may have relied, ... or by deciding an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed”; second, the court “must ... weigh the merits and demerits in each case by looking to the pr 2009In Griffin v. Unocal Corp., 990 So.2d 291 (Ala.2008), the County says, this Court embraced the three factors outlined in Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97, 106-07 , 92 S.Ct. 349 , 30 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971), for determining whether a decision should be applied prospectively: first, the decision “must establish a new principle of law, either by overruling clear past precedent on which litigants may have relied, ... or by deciding an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed”; second, the court “must ... weigh the merits and demerits in each case by looking to the pr | 3 | 7 |
Cates v. Bushgreen2 sentences1978See also Cates v. Bush, 293 Ala. 535 , 307 So.2d 6 (1975), where the history of the rule is traced. 1978See also Cates v. Bush, 293 Ala. 535 , 307 So.2d 6 (1975), where the history of the rule is traced. | 2 | 2 |
Linkletter v. Walkerred2 sentences2012Second, it has been stressed that ‘we must ... weigh the merits and demerits in each case by looking to the prior history of the rule in question, its purpose and effect, and whether retrospective operation will further or retard its operation.’ Linkletter v. Walker, [ 381 U.S. 618, 629 , 85 S.Ct. 1731, 1737-38 , 14 L.Ed.2d 601 (1965) ]. 2012Second, it has been stressed that ‘we must ... weigh the merits and demerits in each case by looking to the prior history of the rule in question, its purpose and effect, and whether retrospective operation will further or retard its operation.’ Linkletter v. Walker, [ 381 U.S. 618, 629 , 85 S.Ct. 1731, 1737-38 , 14 L.Ed.2d 601 (1965) ]. | 1 | 8 |
Gaylon Hofer v. Mack Trucks, Inc.green1 sentence2015As noted above, Vulcan quoted Chief Justice Hooper's dissent in Ex parte Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 682 So.2d 65, 68 (Ala.1996), for the rule requiring a “threshold showing of relevance.” The dissent in Wal-Mart in turn quoted a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Hofer v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 981 F.2d 377, 380 (8th Cir.1992). | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.green1 sentence2015As noted above, Vulcan quoted Chief Justice Hooper's dissent in Ex parte Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 682 So.2d 65, 68 (Ala.1996), for the rule requiring a “threshold showing of relevance.” The dissent in Wal-Mart in turn quoted a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Hofer v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 981 F.2d 377, 380 (8th Cir.1992). | 1 | 1 |
Cline v. Ashland, Inc.green2 sentences2009In Griffin v. Unocal Corp., 990 So.2d 291 (Ala.2008), the County says, this Court embraced the three factors outlined in Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97, 106-07 , 92 S.Ct. 349 , 30 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971), for determining whether a decision should be applied prospectively: first, the decision “must establish a new principle of law, either by overruling clear past precedent on which litigants may have relied, ... or by deciding an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed”; second, the court “must ... weigh the merits and demerits in each case by looking to the pr 2009In Griffin v. Unocal Corp., 990 So.2d 291 (Ala.2008), the County says, this Court embraced the three factors outlined in Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97, 106-07 , 92 S.Ct. 349 , 30 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971), for determining whether a decision should be applied prospectively: first, the decision "must establish a new principle of law, either by overruling clear past precedent on which litigants may have relied,. . . or by deciding an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed"; second, the court "must . . . weigh the merits and demerits in each case by looking to the | 1 | 1 |
Griffin v. Unocal Corp.green2 sentences2009In Griffin v. Unocal Corp., 990 So.2d 291 (Ala.2008), the County says, this Court embraced the three factors outlined in Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97, 106-07 , 92 S.Ct. 349 , 30 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971), for determining whether a decision should be applied prospectively: first, the decision “must establish a new principle of law, either by overruling clear past precedent on which litigants may have relied, ... or by deciding an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed”; second, the court “must ... weigh the merits and demerits in each case by looking to the pr 2009In Griffin v. Unocal Corp., 990 So.2d 291 (Ala.2008), the County says, this Court embraced the three factors outlined in Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97, 106-07 , 92 S.Ct. 349 , 30 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971), for determining whether a decision should be applied prospectively: first, the decision “must establish a new principle of law, either by overruling clear past precedent on which litigants may have relied, ... or by deciding an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed”; second, the court “must ... weigh the merits and demerits in each case by looking to the pr | 1 | 1 |
Harkins & Co. v. Lewisgreen2 sentences2003NOTES [1] In Ex parte Liberty National, we discussed the history of the rule of repose and returned, through clarification, to the traditional meaning of the rule; namely, that "the 20-year period begins to run against claims the first time those claims could have been asserted, regardless of the claimant's notice of a claim." 825 So.2d at 764 (footnotes omitted). [2] See Harkins & Co. v. Lewis, 535 So.2d 104, 117 (Ala.1988). [3] A comparison of the language of Rule 15 "and leave shall be given only upon a showing of good cause"with the alternative phrase "and leave shall be given upon a sho 2003MOORE, C.J., and LYONS and JOHNSTONE, JJ., dissent. 1 In Ex parte Liberty National , we discussed the history of the rule of repose and returned, through clarification, to the traditional meaning of the rule; namely, that "the 20-year period begins to run against claims the first time those claims could have been asserted, regardless of the claimant's notice of a claim." 825 So.2d at 764 (footnotes omitted). 2 See Harkins Co. v. Lewis , 535 So.2d 104 , 117 (Ala. 1988). 3 A comparison of the language of Rule 15 — "and leave shall be given only upon a showing of good cause" — with the alternativ | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Liberty Nat. Life Ins. Co.green2 sentences2003MOORE, C.J., and LYONS and JOHNSTONE, JJ., dissent. 1 In Ex parte Liberty National , we discussed the history of the rule of repose and returned, through clarification, to the traditional meaning of the rule; namely, that "the 20-year period begins to run against claims the first time those claims could have been asserted, regardless of the claimant's notice of a claim." 825 So.2d at 764 (footnotes omitted). 2 See Harkins Co. v. Lewis , 535 So.2d 104 , 117 (Ala. 1988). 3 A comparison of the language of Rule 15 — "and leave shall be given only upon a showing of good cause" — with the alternativ 2003MOORE, C.J., and LYONS and JOHNSTONE, JJ., dissent. 1 In Ex parte Liberty National , we discussed the history of the rule of repose and returned, through clarification, to the traditional meaning of the rule; namely, that "the 20-year period begins to run against claims the first time those claims could have been asserted, regardless of the claimant's notice of a claim." 825 So.2d at 764 (footnotes omitted). 2 See Harkins Co. v. Lewis , 535 So.2d 104 , 117 (Ala. 1988). 3 A comparison of the language of Rule 15 — "and leave shall be given only upon a showing of good cause" — with the alternativ | 1 | 1 |
Chavers v. National SEC. Fire & Cas. Co.green1 sentence1984The scope of review is settled: "A post-judgment motion for a new trial, grounded on a claim that `the verdict is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence' should be granted only in extreme cases, when to let the verdict stand, though supported by some evidence, would be palpably wrong and manifestly unjust." Casey, supra , at 8; Ala.R.Civ.P. 50; see Chavers v. National Security Fire Casualty Co. , 405 So.2d 1 (Ala. 1981), for a discussion of the history of the standard, especially as it is applied to an alleged bad faith refusal to pay an insurance claim. | 1 | 1 |
Maroney's Estategreen2 sentences1935In Re Maroney’s Estate, 311 Pa. 336, 338, 340, 341 , 166 A. 914 , decided in 1933, the questions presented were whether or not, “under section 41 of the Fiduciaries Act of June 7, 1917, P. L. 447, amended April 26, 1929, P L. 817, a trustee may invest in a first mortgage, secured upon real estate of a Pennsylvania corporation, accompanied by the single bond of the corporation to the trustee as sole obligee,” and whether or not the statute, if construed to so authorize, contravened the provisions of section 22 of article 3 of the Constitution of said state? 1935In Re Maroney’s Estate, 311 Pa. 336, 338, 340, 341 , 166 A. 914 , decided in 1933, the questions presented were whether or not, “under section 41 of the Fiduciaries Act of June 7, 1917, P. L. 447, amended April 26, 1929, P L. 817, a trustee may invest in a first mortgage, secured upon real estate of a Pennsylvania corporation, accompanied by the single bond of the corporation to the trustee as sole obligee,” and whether or not the statute, if construed to so authorize, contravened the provisions of section 22 of article 3 of the Constitution of said state? | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Harper v. Virginia Department of Taxation
green
2 sentences2008Finally, we have weighed the inequity imposed by retroactive application, for “[w]here a decision of this Court could produce substantial inequitable results if applied retroactively, there is ample basis in our cases for avoiding the ‘injustice or hardship’ by a holding of nonretroac-tivity.” ’ “Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97, 106-07 , 92 S.Ct. 349, 355 , 30 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971)[, but see Harper v. Virginia Dep’t of Taxation, 509 U.S. 86 (1993) ].” McCullar v. Universal Underwriters Life Ins. 2008Finally, we have weighed the inequity imposed by retroactive application, for "[w]here a decision of this Court could produce substantial inequitable results if applied retroactively, there is ample basis in our cases for avoiding the `injustice or hardship' by a holding of nonretroactivity.'" " Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97, 106-07 , 92 S.Ct. 349, 355 , 30 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971)[, but see Harper v. Virginia Dep't of Taxation, 509 U.S. 86 (1993)]." McCullar v. Universal Underwriters Life Ins. | 3 | 2007–2008 |
McCullar v. UNIV. UNDERWRITERS LIFE INS.
green
2 sentences2012Finally, we have weighed the inequity imposed by retroactive application, for ‘[wjhere a decision of this Court could produce substantial inequitable results if applied retroactively, there is ample basis in our cases for avoiding the “injustice or hardship” by a holding of nonretroactivity.’ ” ’ “687 So.2d at 165 (quoting Chevron Oil, 404 U.S. at 106-07 , 92 S.Ct. at 355 , 30 L.Ed.2d at 296 (1971)).” 718 So.2d at 24 . 1998Finally, we have weighed the inequity imposed by retroactive application, for "[w]here a decision of this Court could produce substantial inequitable results if applied retroactively, there is ample basis in our cases for avoiding the `injustice or hardship' by holding of nonretroactivity."'" 687 So.2d at 165 (quoting Chevron Oil , 404 U.S. at 106 -07 , 92 S.Ct. at 355 , 30 L.Ed.2d at 296 (1971)). | 2 | 1998–2012 |
Kennedy v. Bremerton School Dist.
green
1 sentence2024Dist., 597 U.S. 507 , 535- 36 (2022)). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
First Tennessee Bank v. Snell
green
1 sentence2012Finally, we have weighed the inequity imposed by retroactive application, for ‘[wjhere a decision of this Court could produce substantial inequitable results if applied retroactively, there is ample basis in our cases for avoiding the “injustice or hardship” by a holding of nonretroactivity.’ ” ’ “687 So.2d at 165 (quoting Chevron Oil, 404 U.S. at 106-07 , 92 S.Ct. at 355 , 30 L.Ed.2d at 296 (1971)).” 718 So.2d at 24 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Hall Street Associates, L. L. C. v. Mattel, Inc.
green
2 sentences2010Subsequently, in Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576 , 128 S.Ct. 1396 , 170 L.Ed.2d 254 (2008), the United States Supreme Court rejected manifest disregard of the law as an available ground for reviewing arbitration awards under the FAA. 2010Subsequently, in Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576 , 128 S.Ct. 1396 , 170 L.Ed.2d 254 (2008), the United States Supreme Court rejected manifest disregard of the law as an available ground for reviewing arbitration awards under the FAA. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Birmingham News Co. v. Horn
red
1 sentence2010This Court reviewed the history of the standard in the federal courts and in the appellate courts of other states and then concluded: “This Court joins the majority of other state appellate courts that have considered the matter in now recognizing ‘manifest disregard of the lav^ as a ground available for reviewing an arbitration award.” 901 So.2d at 50 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Hewlett v. George
red
1 sentence2003We discussed the history of the doctrine in this State, and the rationale for crafting an exception, in Hurst : "The parental immunity doctrine had its genesis in the United States in Hewellette v. George, 68 Miss. 703 , 9 So. 885 (1891), abrogated by Glaskox v. Glaskox, 614 So.2d 906 (Miss.1992), in which a minor daughter was precluded from suing her deceased mother's estate for damages resulting from mental suffering and injury to her character incurred during her confinement in an asylum for 11 days caused by her mother. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Glaskox by and Through Denton v. Glaskox
green
1 sentence2003We discussed the history of the doctrine in this State, and the rationale for crafting an exception, in Hurst : "The parental immunity doctrine had its genesis in the United States in Hewellette v. George, 68 Miss. 703 , 9 So. 885 (1891), abrogated by Glaskox v. Glaskox, 614 So.2d 906 (Miss.1992), in which a minor daughter was precluded from suing her deceased mother's estate for damages resulting from mental suffering and injury to her character incurred during her confinement in an asylum for 11 days caused by her mother. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Oehmig v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2003Furthermore, Oehmig was not decided on the basis of this incorrect statement; rather, Oehmig was decided on the basis that the rule of repose could not be used offensively (in a manner similar to the concept of adverse possession) `against one with valid record title by one who clearly does not have title' in order to divest the title owner of property. 638 So.2d at 850 . 2003Furthermore, Oehmig was not decided on the basis of this incorrect statement; rather, Oehmig was decided on the basis that the rule of repose could not be used offensively (in a manner similar to the concept of adverse possession) `against one with valid record title by one who clearly does not have title' in order to divest the title owner of property. 638 So.2d at 850 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Hutchinson v. Board of Trustees of University of Alabama
green
2 sentences2000Development of the Doctrine of Immunity We today reexamine the doctrine of immunity of officers, agents, and employees of the State for torts committed in the course of their performance of their duties. [2] We begin our discussion with a review of the doctrine of immunity where the issue *397 arises in the context of the immunity available to the State in an action against the State ("State immunity") as opposed to the immunity available to individual defendants sued for actions taken on behalf of the State ("State-agent immunity"). [3] In Hutchinson v. Board of Trustees of University of Alab 2000Development of the Doctrine of Immunity We today reexamine the doctrine of immunity of officers, agents, and employees of the State for torts committed in the course of their performance of their duties. [2] We begin our discussion with a review of the doctrine of immunity where the issue *397 arises in the context of the immunity available to the State in an action against the State ("State immunity") as opposed to the immunity available to individual defendants sued for actions taken on behalf of the State ("State-agent immunity"). [3] In Hutchinson v. Board of Trustees of University of Alab | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Casey v. Jones
green
1 sentence1984The scope of review is settled: "A post-judgment motion for a new trial, grounded on a claim that `the verdict is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence' should be granted only in extreme cases, when to let the verdict stand, though supported by some evidence, would be palpably wrong and manifestly unjust." Casey, supra , at 8; Ala.R.Civ.P. 50; see Chavers v. National Security Fire Casualty Co. , 405 So.2d 1 (Ala. 1981), for a discussion of the history of the standard, especially as it is applied to an alleged bad faith refusal to pay an insurance claim. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Powell v. Republic National Life Insurance Co.
green
2 sentences1976Because it is subject to revision, it is not a final judgment and will not support an appeal.” Powell v. Republic National Life Insurance Co. et al., 293 Ala. 101 , 300 So.2d 359 (1974); See also Cates v. Bush, 293 Ala. 535 , 307 So.2d 6 (1975), where the history of the rule is traced. 1976Because it is subject to revision, it is not a final judgment and will not support an appeal.” Powell v. Republic National Life Insurance Co. et al., 293 Ala. 101 , 300 So.2d 359 (1974); See also Cates v. Bush, 293 Ala. 535 , 307 So.2d 6 (1975), where the history of the rule is traced. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
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.