19 Alabama opinions name it 4 courts 1933–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gann v. Ganngreen2 sentences1998See, e.g., Gann v. Gann, 705 So.2d 509 (Ala.Civ.App.1997) (addressing a paternity challenge by a previously adjudicated father, where the State was not a party); Simmons v. Ellis, 628 So.2d 804, 804 (Ala.Civ.App.1993) (holding that a paternity challenge was barred by the doctrine of res judicata in an action where the State was not a party); Quebedeaux v. Lord, 599 So.2d 51 (Ala.Civ.App.1992) (holding that the issue of paternity was barred by the doctrine of res judicata in an action where the State was not a party). 1998See, e.g., Gann v. Gann, 705 So.2d 509 (Ala.Civ.App.1997) (addressing a paternity challenge by a previously adjudicated father, where the State was not a party); Simmons v. Ellis, 628 So.2d 804, 804 (Ala.Civ.App.1993) (holding that a paternity challenge was barred by the doctrine of res judicata in an action where the State was not a party); Quebedeaux v. Lord, 599 So.2d 51 (Ala.Civ.App. 1992) (holding that the issue of paternity was barred by the doctrine of res judicata in an action where the State was not a party). | 2 | 2 |
Simmons v. Ellisgreen2 sentences1998See, e.g., Gann v. Gann, 705 So.2d 509 (Ala.Civ.App.1997) (addressing a paternity challenge by a previously adjudicated father, where the State was not a party); Simmons v. Ellis, 628 So.2d 804, 804 (Ala.Civ.App.1993) (holding that a paternity challenge was barred by the doctrine of res judicata in an action where the State was not a party); Quebedeaux v. Lord, 599 So.2d 51 (Ala.Civ.App.1992) (holding that the issue of paternity was barred by the doctrine of res judicata in an action where the State was not a party). 1998See, e.g., Gann v. Gann, 705 So.2d 509 (Ala.Civ.App.1997) (addressing a paternity challenge by a previously adjudicated father, where the State was not a party); Simmons v. Ellis, 628 So.2d 804, 804 (Ala.Civ.App.1993) (holding that a paternity challenge was barred by the doctrine of res judicata in an action where the State was not a party); Quebedeaux v. Lord, 599 So.2d 51 (Ala.Civ.App. 1992) (holding that the issue of paternity was barred by the doctrine of res judicata in an action where the State was not a party). | 2 | 2 |
Michael H. v. Gerald D.green2 sentences1990See, e.g., Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 2333 , 105 L.Ed.2d 91 (1989) (under California statute); Adams v. State, 428 So.2d 117 (Ala.Civ.App.1983). 1990See, e.g., Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 2333 , 105 L.Ed.2d 91 (1989) (under California statute); Adams v. State, 428 So.2d 117 (Ala.Civ.App.1983). | 2 | 2 |
Ex Parte Pressegreen2 sentences2018The Alabama Comment to § 26-17-607 specifically states that '[s]ubsection (a) follows Ex parte Presse , 554 So.2d 406 (Ala. 1989) [,] and its progeny that favor maintaining the integrity of the family unit and the father-child relationship that was developed therein.' " (Emphasis added.) In this case, the circuit court held a hearing to determine whether Patricia had standing to assert a paternity claim and, more specifically, to allow the parties to present evidence bearing on whether Remano, during his lifetime, persisted in the presumption of paternity afforded him by § 26-17-204(a)(1). 2018The Alabama Comment to § 26-17-607 specifically states that '[s]ubsection (a) follows Ex parte Presse , 554 So.2d 406 (Ala. 1989) [,] and its progeny that favor maintaining the integrity of the family unit and the father-child relationship that was developed therein.' " (Emphasis added.) In this case, the circuit court held a hearing to determine whether Patricia had standing to assert a paternity claim and, more specifically, to allow the parties to present evidence bearing on whether Remano, during his lifetime, persisted in the presumption of paternity afforded him by § 26-17-204(a)(1). | 1 | 3 |
Sanders v. Stategreen2 sentences1989Sanders v. State , 426 So.2d 497 , 504 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982). 1989Sanders v. State, 426 So.2d 497, 504 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982). | 1 | 2 |
Adoption of Michael H.green2 sentences2010As the California Supreme Court has noted, such a requirement entails “physically bring[ing] the child into his home,” for a man cannot “constructively receive a child into his home.” In re Adoption of Michael K, 10 Cal.4th 1043, 1051 , 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 445 , 449, 898 P.2d 891, 895 (1995). 2010As the California Supreme Court has noted, such a requirement entails “physically bring[ing] the child into his home,” for a man cannot “constructively receive a child into his home.” In re Adoption of Michael K, 10 Cal.4th 1043, 1051 , 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 445 , 449, 898 P.2d 891, 895 (1995). | 1 | 1 |
Harris v. Mitchellgreen1 sentence2007See Harris v. Mitchell, 958 So.2d 884 (Ala.Civ.App.2006). | 1 | 1 |
Floyd v. Floydgreen1 sentence2003See generally Floyd v. Floyd , 701 So.2d 1151 (Ala.Civ.App. 1997). | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Handleygreen1 sentence2003We note that it is the general rule that a court of equity, vested with jurisdiction in a particular case, proceed to resolve all issues placed before it and "settle all the equities between the parties." Creel v. Creel , 342 So.2d 793 , 794 (Ala.Civ.App. 1977); cf. Ex parte Handley , 460 So.2d 167 , 169 (Ala. 1984) ("`Equity delights to do justice, and not by halves.'") (quoting Moore v. Moore , 255 Ala. 393 , 401 , 51 So.2d 683 , 690 (1951)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ex Parte LFB
green
2 sentences2003Ex parte L.F.B., 599 So.2d at 1182 . 2002Ex parte L.F.B., 599 So.2d at 1182 . | 2 | 2002–2003 |
Rlt v. Svp
neutral
2 sentences1998Indeed, in R.L.T. v. S.V.P., 703 So.2d 1002 (Ala.Civ.App.1997), the Court of Civil Appeals expressly applied § 26-17A-1 to reopen a paternity judgment in which the State was not a party. 1998Indeed, in R.L.T. v. S.V.P., 703 So.2d 1002 (Ala.Civ.App. 1997), the Court of Civil Appeals expressly applied § 26-17A-1 to reopen a paternity judgment in which the State was not a party. | 2 | 1998–1998 |
Quebedeaux v. Lord
green
2 sentences1998See, e.g., Gann v. Gann, 705 So.2d 509 (Ala.Civ.App.1997) (addressing a paternity challenge by a previously adjudicated father, where the State was not a party); Simmons v. Ellis, 628 So.2d 804, 804 (Ala.Civ.App.1993) (holding that a paternity challenge was barred by the doctrine of res judicata in an action where the State was not a party); Quebedeaux v. Lord, 599 So.2d 51 (Ala.Civ.App.1992) (holding that the issue of paternity was barred by the doctrine of res judicata in an action where the State was not a party). 1998See, e.g., Gann v. Gann, 705 So.2d 509 (Ala.Civ.App.1997) (addressing a paternity challenge by a previously adjudicated father, where the State was not a party); Simmons v. Ellis, 628 So.2d 804, 804 (Ala.Civ.App.1993) (holding that a paternity challenge was barred by the doctrine of res judicata in an action where the State was not a party); Quebedeaux v. Lord, 599 So.2d 51 (Ala.Civ.App. 1992) (holding that the issue of paternity was barred by the doctrine of res judicata in an action where the State was not a party). | 2 | 1998–1998 |
Adams v. State
green
2 sentences1990See, e.g., Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 2333 , 105 L.Ed.2d 91 (1989) (under California statute); Adams v. State, 428 So.2d 117 (Ala.Civ.App.1983). 1990See, e.g., Michael H. v. Gerald D. , 491 U.S. ___ , 109 S.Ct. 2333 , 105 L.Ed.2d 91 (1989) (under California statute); Adams v. State , 428 So.2d 117 (Ala.Civ.App. 1983). | 2 | 1990–1990 |
Ex Parte CAP
green
1 sentence2013In addition, this court also noted the policy considerations identified by our supreme court, specifically that “ ‘the obvious objectives of the Alabama Uniform Parentage Act ... are to provide for the psychological stability and general welfare of the child and to afford legitimacy to children whenever possible.’ ” Cravens v. Cravens, 936 So.2d at 541 (quoting Ex parte C.A.P., 683 So.2d at 1012 ). 3 The foregoing authorities demonstrate that, in order for a man to persist in maintaining his paternity or his claim as the presumed or legal father of a child, there is no requirement that the man | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Cravens v. Cravens
neutral
1 sentence2013In addition, this court also noted the policy considerations identified by our supreme court, specifically that “ ‘the obvious objectives of the Alabama Uniform Parentage Act ... are to provide for the psychological stability and general welfare of the child and to afford legitimacy to children whenever possible.’ ” Cravens v. Cravens, 936 So.2d at 541 (quoting Ex parte C.A.P., 683 So.2d at 1012 ). 3 The foregoing authorities demonstrate that, in order for a man to persist in maintaining his paternity or his claim as the presumed or legal father of a child, there is no requirement that the man | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Creel v. Creel
green
1 sentence2003We note that it is the general rule that a court of equity, vested with jurisdiction in a particular case, proceed to resolve all issues placed before it and "settle all the equities between the parties." Creel v. Creel , 342 So.2d 793 , 794 (Ala.Civ.App. 1977); cf. Ex parte Handley , 460 So.2d 167 , 169 (Ala. 1984) ("`Equity delights to do justice, and not by halves.'") (quoting Moore v. Moore , 255 Ala. 393 , 401 , 51 So.2d 683 , 690 (1951)). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Moore v. Moore
green
2 sentences2003We note that it is the general rule that a court of equity, vested with jurisdiction in a particular case, proceed to resolve all issues placed before it and "settle all the equities between the parties." Creel v. Creel , 342 So.2d 793 , 794 (Ala.Civ.App. 1977); cf. Ex parte Handley , 460 So.2d 167 , 169 (Ala. 1984) ("`Equity delights to do justice, and not by halves.'") (quoting Moore v. Moore , 255 Ala. 393 , 401 , 51 So.2d 683 , 690 (1951)). 2003We note that it is the general rule that a court of equity, vested with jurisdiction in a particular case, proceed to resolve all issues placed before it and "settle all the equities between the parties." Creel v. Creel , 342 So.2d 793 , 794 (Ala.Civ.App. 1977); cf. Ex parte Handley , 460 So.2d 167 , 169 (Ala. 1984) ("`Equity delights to do justice, and not by halves.'") (quoting Moore v. Moore , 255 Ala. 393 , 401 , 51 So.2d 683 , 690 (1951)). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Evans v. Evans
green
1 sentence2001In Gann , this court reversed the judgment of the trial court because that court had concluded that the husband of the mother in that case was the father of the mother’s child, despite a paternity test and expert evidence “conclusively excluding him as the father.” Id. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Pittman v. Pittman
green
1 sentence1986Williams v. Burnett, 439 So.2d 1299 (Ala.Civ.App.1983); Pittman v. Pittman, supra. In the instant case, almost ten years has elapsed since the original paternity hearing. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Williams v. Burnett
neutral
1 sentence1986Williams v. Burnett, 439 So.2d 1299 (Ala.Civ.App.1983); Pittman v. Pittman, supra. In the instant case, almost ten years has elapsed since the original paternity hearing. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Street v. City of Anniston
green
1 sentence1984Accordingly, the trial court did not err in relying on Street v. City of Anniston , 381 So.2d 26 (Ala. 1980) and applying the five-year statute. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Phelps v. McLeod
neutral
2 sentences1933In Phelps v. McLeod, 17 Ala. App. 480 , 86 So. 150 , the court said: “While courts recognize the right of the father to the custody and control of his minor children, he being-otherwise a fit and proper person, all the courts agree that the prime consideration in determining the question as between a father and other persons is the permanent good of the child.” In Bradley v. Bennett, supra, the court said: “The mere fact of the paternity as a rule entails but small trouble or inconvenience, and should not be allowed to overturn weightier considerations.” In the exercise of the discretion with 1933In Phelps v. McLeod, 17 Ala. App. 480 , 86 So. 150 , the court said: “While courts recognize the right of the father to the custody and control of his minor children, he being-otherwise a fit and proper person, all the courts agree that the prime consideration in determining the question as between a father and other persons is the permanent good of the child.” In Bradley v. Bennett, supra, the court said: “The mere fact of the paternity as a rule entails but small trouble or inconvenience, and should not be allowed to overturn weightier considerations.” In the exercise of the discretion with | 1 | 1933–1933 |
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.