waivable defense (Alabama) · Go Syfert
← Alabama issues

waivable defense in Alabama

17 Alabama opinions name it 1 courts 2006–2026 14 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 (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Baldwin Mut. Ins. Co. v. McCaingreen
ala · 2018 · cited in 14 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2026–2026
2 sentences

2026Co. v. McCain, 260 So. 3d 801, 810 (Ala. 2018) (explaining that abatement is a waivable defense that is not grounded on a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction).

2026Co. v. McCain, 260 So. 3d 801, 810 (Ala. 2018) (explaining that abatement is a waivable defense that is not grounded on a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction).

1214
Heckler v. Ringergreen
scotus · 1984 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012
2 sentences

2012If the amount in controversy is $1,000 or more, the individual or [Medicare Advantage] organization shall ... be entitled to judicial review of the Secretary’s final decision as provided in section 405(g) of this title.”). “[T]he exhaustion requirement of § 405(g) consists of a nonwaivable requirement that a ‘claim for benefits shall have been presented to the Secretary,’ and a waivable requirement that the administrative remedies prescribed by the Secretary be pursued fully by the claimant.” Ringer, 466 U.S. at 617 (citation omitted). “[T]he exhaustion requirement ... is a prerequisite to jur

2012If the amount in controversy is $1,000 or more, the individual or [Medicare Advantage] organization shall ... be entitled to judicial review of the Secretary’s final decision as provided in section 405(g) of this title.”). “[T]he exhaustion requirement of § 405(g) consists of a nonwaivable requirement that a ‘claim for benefits shall have been presented to the Secretary,’ and a waivable requirement that the administrative remedies prescribed by the Secretary be pursued fully by the claimant.” Ringer, 466 U.S. at 617 (citation omitted). “[T]he exhaustion requirement ... is a prerequisite to jur

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 (3)

CaseCitedYears
International Longshoremen's Ass'n v. Davis green
ala · 1985
1 sentence

2010It should be noted that the issue with which the Davis Court was concerned was whether "the National Labor Relations Act preempts a state’s subject matter jurisdiction,” or "whether federal preemption is[, instead,] a waivable defense.” 470 So.2d at 1216 .

12010–2010
Washington v. State green
ala · 1886
1 sentence

2006In one line of cases (see, e.g., Washington v. State, 81 Ala. 35 , 1 So. 18 (1887)), the Court held that it would presume that members of the venire were sworn where the record was silent, but in another line of cases (see, e.g., Harrington v. State, 83 Ala. 9 , 3 So. 425 (1888)), the Court held that the record must show that such oath was administered.

12006–2006
Harrington v. State green
ala · 1887
1 sentence

2006In one line of cases (see, e.g., Washington v. State, 81 Ala. 35 , 1 So. 18 (1887)), the Court held that it would presume that members of the venire were sworn where the record was silent, but in another line of cases (see, e.g., Harrington v. State, 83 Ala. 9 , 3 So. 425 (1888)), the Court held that the record must show that such oath was administered.

12006–2006

Statutes the citing opinions construe

AL § Ala. Code § 6-5-440 (14) AL § Ala. Code § 6-5-542 (14) AL § Ala. Code § 6-5-543 (14) AL § Ala. Code § 6-6-540 (14) AL § Ala. Code § 6-6-541 (14)

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.

Where else courts name it

PA 29 (1959–2026) AL 17 (2006–2026) OH 11 (1980–2025) FL 7 (2018–2025) NY 6 (1989–2025) CA 4 (1994–2019) TX 4 (1993–2008) NJ 3 (2003–2025) KS 3 (1988–2024) NV 2 (2013–2021) NM 2 (2022–2024) UT 2 (2005–2026) GA 2 (1995–2026) IN 2 (2004–2004)

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