reasonable time requirement (Alabama) · Go Syfert
← Alabama issues

reasonable time requirement in Alabama

18 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2023 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.

Followed or applied (5)

CaseFollowedCited
Ex Parte Full Circle Distribution, L.L.C.green
ala · 2003 · cited in 17 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2004–2023
2 sentences

2023P., does not apply to a motion filed pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4), see discussion and n.10, supra; see also Ex parte Full Circle Distrib., L.L.C., 883 So. 2d 638, 643 (Ala. 2003) ("[A] motion for relief from a void judgment is not governed by the reasonable-time requirement of Rule 60(b)[, Ala. R.

2018See Ex parte Full Circle Distribution L.L.C. , 883 So.2d 638 , 643 (Ala. 2003) (holding that "a motion for relief from a void judgment [filed pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4) ] is not governed by the reasonable-time requirement of Rule 60(b)").

1517
Hooie v. Barksdalegreen
alacivapp · 2012 · cited in 3 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2013–2014
2 sentences

2014Ex parte Full Circle Distrib., L.L.C., 883 So.2d 638, 641 (Ala.2003) (determining that a Rule 60(b)(4) motion was not subject to the reasonable-time requirement of Rule 60(b) and could be brought at any time); see also Hooie v. Barksdale, 93 So.3d 942, 944 (Ala.Civ.App.2012) (“A motion brought under Rule 60(b)(4) is not subject to the reasonable-time requirement of Rule 60(b) and may be brought at any time.”).

2013Ex parte Full Circle Distrib., L.L.C., 883 So.2d 638, 641 (Ala.2003) (determining that a Rule 60(b)(4) motion was not subject to the reasonable-time requirement of Rule 60(b) and could be brought at any time); see also Hooie v. Barksdale, 93 So.3d 942, 944 (Ala.Civ.App.2012) (“A motion brought under Rule 60(b)(4) is not subject to the reasonable-time requirement of Rule 60(b) and may be brought at any time.”).

33
Franklin v. Catledgegreen
alacivapp · 2010 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012
1 sentence

2012For example in a November 18, 2010, filing in the trial court, Simmons stated: “In Looney v. State, 60 So.3d 293, 296 (Ala.Civ.App.2010), the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals held that ‘ “[a]s a nullity, a void judgment has no effect and is subject to attack at any time.... [A] motion for relief from a void judgment is not governed by the reasonable-time requirement of Rule 60(b).” [Ex parte Full Circle Distribution, L.L.C., 883 So.2d 638, 643 (Ala.2003) ].’ Also on this issue, [Judge Moore of the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals], concurring specially in Franklin v. Catledge, 59 So.3d 738, 742 (A

11
Looney v. Stategreen
alacivapp · 2010 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012
1 sentence

2012For example in a November 18, 2010, filing in the trial court, Simmons stated: “In Looney v. State, 60 So.3d 293, 296 (Ala.Civ.App.2010), the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals held that ‘ “[a]s a nullity, a void judgment has no effect and is subject to attack at any time.... [A] motion for relief from a void judgment is not governed by the reasonable-time requirement of Rule 60(b).” [Ex parte Full Circle Distribution, L.L.C., 883 So.2d 638, 643 (Ala.2003) ].’ Also on this issue, [Judge Moore of the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals], concurring specially in Franklin v. Catledge, 59 So.3d 738, 742 (A

11
Milloy v. H.H. Woods & Woods & Sons Constructiongreen
alacivapp · 2009 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010
1 sentence

2010P., shall ‘not be made moré than four months after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken.’ ” In fact, however, Rule 60(b) provides that a motion filed pursuant to the rule “shall be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons [set forth in Rule 60(b) ](1), (2), and (3)[ 3 ] not more than four (4) months after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken.” Clearly, Looney’s Rule 60(b)(4) motion was not filed pursuant to reasons (1), (2) or (3), but pursuant to reason (4), i.e., that the judgment is void. “ ‘As a nullity, a void judgment has no effect and is subje

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (1)

CaseCitedYears
Hendrix, Mohr & Yardley, Inc. v. City of Daphne green
ala · 1978
1 sentence

1990Hendrix, supra. His continuing failure to install water is further evidence of that breach.

11990–1990

Where else courts name it

TX 51 (1930–2026) AL 18 (1990–2023) OH 18 (1990–2025) IL 14 (1973–2021) UT 14 (1993–2024) NY 12 (1906–2013) AZ 10 (1972–2021) MO 9 (1894–2014) CA 9 (1911–2015) FL 8 (2000–2008) WA 7 (1999–2022) PA 6 (1937–2018) NC 6 (1930–2013) CO 6 (1964–2026) OK 5 (1918–1976) MA 5 (1940–2023) NJ 5 (1981–2003) ID 5 (1912–2012) MI 5 (2019–2024) NV 5 (2005–2021) WI 5 (1959–2024) IN 4 (1938–2023) RI 4 (1973–1996) SC 4 (1996–2023) NM 4 (1988–2008) KY 4 (1912–2026) IA 3 (1982–2008) VA 3 (1895–2000) CT 3 (1975–2002) HI 3 (2010–2013) DC 3 (2010–2010) DE 3 (1977–2025) KS 3 (1985–2007) SD 2 (1958–1996) WY 2 (1995–2007) TN 2 (2004–2014) MS 2 (2001–2022) WV 2 (1989–2012)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check