16 Alabama opinions name it 3 courts 1985–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Palm Harbor Homes, Inc. v. Crawfordgreen2 sentences2008Cf. Palm Harbor Homes, Inc. v. Crawford, 689 So.2d 3, 9 (Ala.1997) (quoting with approval the trial court’s order denying a postjudgment motion for relief in which the trial court explained that ‘“[t]here was evidence from which the jury could find, by a clear and convincing standard, that” ’ the requisite element of the plaintiffs claim had been proven). 2008Cf. Palm Harbor Homes, Inc. v. Crawford, 689 So.2d 3, 9 (Ala.1997) (quoting with approval the trial court's order denying a postjudgment motion for relief in which the trial court explained that `"[t]here was evidence from which the jury could find, by a clear and convincing standard, that"' the requisite element of the plaintiff's claim had been proven). | 2 | 2 |
Knight v. Beverly H. C. Bay Manor H. C. Ctr.green2 sentences2008Further, because we request only that the trial court apply the clear-and-convincing standard to the evidence it has already received and evaluated, we instruct that the trial court return its order on remand to this Court within 14 days." 820 So.2d at 102 (citations omitted). 2008Further, because we request only that the trial court apply the clear-and-convincing standard to the evidence it has already received and evaluated, we instruct that the trial court return its order on remand to this Court within 14 days.” 820 So.2d at 102 (citations omitted). | 2 | 2 |
Ward v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences1991See Ward v. Commonwealth, 407 Mass. 434 , 554 N.E.2d 25, 27 (1990) (appeal of juvenile transfer order under ch. 119, § 61 Mass.Gen.Laws Ann. 1991See Ward v. Commonwealth, 407 Mass. 434 , 554 N.E.2d 25, 27 (1990) (appeal of juvenile transfer order under ch. 119, § 61 Mass.Gen.Laws Ann. | 2 | 2 |
Ex Parte Terrygreen2 sentences2003However, for ease of reading we will refer to September 2001 as the month in which the mother sought treatment. 2 We do not cite Ex parte Terry , 494 So.2d 628 , 632 (Ala. 1986), for this particular proposition, because although the clear-and-convincing standard applicable to an unfitness determination in cases involving a custody dispute between a parent and a nonparent appears to be well settled, the language most often cited from Ex parte Terry , which quotes Ex parte Mathews , 428 So.2d 58 , 59 (Ala. 1983), contains the phrase "`supported by competent evidence.'" (some emphasis omitted). 2003However, for ease of reading we will refer to September 2001 as the month in which the mother sought treatment. [2] We do not cite Ex parte Terry, 494 So.2d 628, 632 (Ala.1986), for this particular proposition, because although the clear-and-convincing standard applicable to an unfitness determination in cases involving a custody dispute between a parent and a nonparent appears to be well settled, the language most often cited from Ex parte Terry, which quotes Ex parte Mathews, 428 So.2d 58, 59 (Ala. 1983), contains the phrase "`supported by competent evidence.'" (some emphasis omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Griggs v. Barnesgreen2 sentences2003See Griggs v. Barnes , 262 Ala. 357 , 364 , 78 So.2d 910 , 917 (1955), and Ex parte Sullivan , 407 So.2d 559 , 563 (Ala. 1981). 2003See Griggs v. Barnes , 262 Ala. 357 , 364 , 78 So.2d 910 , 917 (1955), and Ex parte Sullivan , 407 So.2d 559 , 563 (Ala. 1981). | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Mathewsgreen2 sentences2003However, for ease of reading we will refer to September 2001 as the month in which the mother sought treatment. 2 We do not cite Ex parte Terry , 494 So.2d 628 , 632 (Ala. 1986), for this particular proposition, because although the clear-and-convincing standard applicable to an unfitness determination in cases involving a custody dispute between a parent and a nonparent appears to be well settled, the language most often cited from Ex parte Terry , which quotes Ex parte Mathews , 428 So.2d 58 , 59 (Ala. 1983), contains the phrase "`supported by competent evidence.'" (some emphasis omitted). 2003However, for ease of reading we will refer to September 2001 as the month in which the mother sought treatment. [2] We do not cite Ex parte Terry, 494 So.2d 628, 632 (Ala.1986), for this particular proposition, because although the clear-and-convincing standard applicable to an unfitness determination in cases involving a custody dispute between a parent and a nonparent appears to be well settled, the language most often cited from Ex parte Terry, which quotes Ex parte Mathews, 428 So.2d 58, 59 (Ala. 1983), contains the phrase "`supported by competent evidence.'" (some emphasis omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Sullivangreen2 sentences2003See Griggs v. Barnes , 262 Ala. 357 , 364 , 78 So.2d 910 , 917 (1955), and Ex parte Sullivan , 407 So.2d 559 , 563 (Ala. 1981). 2003See Griggs v. Barnes, 262 Ala. 357, 364 , 78 So.2d 910, 917 (1955), and Ex parte Sullivan, 407 So.2d 559, 563 (Ala.1981). | 1 | 1 |
Th v. State Dept. of Human Resourcesgreen1 sentence1999See T.H. v. State Dep’t of Human Resources, 740 So.2d 1089 (Ala.Civ.App.1998); Hamilton v. State, 410 So.2d 64 (Ala.Civ.App.1982). | 1 | 1 |
DRH v. Stategreen1 sentence1996E.g., B.L.S. v. State, 628 So.2d 1034, 1036 (Ala.Cr.App. 1993) (quoting the clear and convincing standard of review and applying the abuse of discretion standard of review); R.J. v. State, 627 So.2d 1163, 1169 (Ala.Cr.App.1993) (applying both the “abuse of discretion” standard and the “clear and convincing” standard); D.R.H. v. State, 615 So.2d 1327, 1329 (Ala.Cr.App.1993) (applying the abuse of discretion standard of review). 5 This case provides yet another example, in my opinion, of this failure to conduct a thorough analysis of the evidence and apply the appropriate standard, because there | 1 | 1 |
R.J. v. Stategreen1 sentence1996E.g., B.L.S. v. State, 628 So.2d 1034, 1036 (Ala.Cr.App. 1993) (quoting the clear and convincing standard of review and applying the abuse of discretion standard of review); R.J. v. State, 627 So.2d 1163, 1169 (Ala.Cr.App.1993) (applying both the “abuse of discretion” standard and the “clear and convincing” standard); D.R.H. v. State, 615 So.2d 1327, 1329 (Ala.Cr.App.1993) (applying the abuse of discretion standard of review). 5 This case provides yet another example, in my opinion, of this failure to conduct a thorough analysis of the evidence and apply the appropriate standard, because there | 1 | 1 |
BLS v. Stategreen1 sentence1996E.g., B.L.S. v. State, 628 So.2d 1034, 1036 (Ala.Cr.App. 1993) (quoting the clear and convincing standard of review and applying the abuse of discretion standard of review); R.J. v. State, 627 So.2d 1163, 1169 (Ala.Cr.App.1993) (applying both the “abuse of discretion” standard and the “clear and convincing” standard); D.R.H. v. State, 615 So.2d 1327, 1329 (Ala.Cr.App.1993) (applying the abuse of discretion standard of review). 5 This case provides yet another example, in my opinion, of this failure to conduct a thorough analysis of the evidence and apply the appropriate standard, because there | 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 TV
green
2 sentences2014The clear-and-convincing standard requires “an exacting level of certainty based on evidence of the parent’s current situation.” Id. 2013The clear-and-convincing standard requires “an exacting level of certainty based on evidence of the parent’s current situation.” Id. (emphasis added). | 2 | 2013–2014 |
Hinds v. Hinds
green
2 sentences2014This Court does “ ‘ “not sit in judgment of the facts,” ’ ” but “ ‘ “review[s] the factfinder’s determination of facts only to the extent of determining whether it is sufficiently supported by the evidence, that question being one of law.” ’ ” Id. (quoting Hinds v. Hinds, 887 So.2d 267 , 272-73 n. 2 (Ala.Civ.App.2003), quoting in turn Curtis White Constr. 2013This Court does “ ‘ “not sit in judgment of the facts,” ’ ” but “ ‘ “review[s] the factfin-der’s determination of facts only to the extent of determining whether it is sufficiently supported by the evidence, that question being one of law.” ’ ” Id. (quoting Hinds v. Hinds, 887 So.2d 267 , 272-73 n. 2 (Ala.Civ.App.2003)). | 2 | 2013–2014 |
Gary v. Crouch
green
2 sentences2008“As I wrote in Gary v. Crouch, 923 So.2d 1130 (Ala.Civ.App.2005): “ ‘The “clear-and-convincing-evidence” standard ... is the standard ultimately to be applied at trial by the fact-finder in this [defamation] case, just as the “preponderance-of-the-evidence” standard is applied in most civil cases by the fact-finder. 2008"As I wrote in Gary v. Crouch, 923 So.2d 1130 (Ala.Civ.App.2005): "`The "clear-and-convincing-evidence" standard . . . is the standard ultimately to be applied at trial by the fact-finder in this [defamation] case, just as the "preponderance-of-the-evidence" standard is applied in most civil cases by the fact-finder. | 2 | 2006–2008 |
BE & K, INC. v. Weaver
green
2 sentences2008In BE & K, Inc. v. Weaver, 743 So.2d 476 (Ala.Civ.App.1999), this court similarly reversed a trial court's judgment when the trial court had failed to base its factual findings on clear and convincing evidence in a workers' compensation case in which the employee had alleged a gradual back injury. 2008In BE & K, Inc. v. Weaver, 743 So.2d 476 (Ala.Civ.App.1999), this court similarly reversed a trial court’s judgment when the trial court had failed to base its factual findings on clear and convincing evidence in a workers’ compensation case in which the employee had alleged a gradual back injury. | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Weldon v. Ballow
green
1 sentence2017As he correctly contends, allowing a trial court to award grandparent visitation over the objection of a fit parent based solely on the trial court's determination that it can make a "better" decision for the child has been held to be an unconstitutional exercise of the state's power. *78 Weldon v. Ballow , 200 So.3d 654 , 669 (Ala. Civ. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Thomas v. Elephant Run
green
2 sentences2003Section 25-5-1 (9) states, in pertinent part: "Injury shall include physical injury caused either by carpal tunnel syndrome disorder or by other cumulative trauma disorder if either disorder arises out of and in the course of the employment. . . ." The Code definition of "injury" recognizes that carpal tunnel syndrome is usually classified as a "cumulative trauma disorder," or, as Dr. Autry put it, "a repetitive type of problem." But, as Dr. Autry also recognized, carpal tunnel syndrome "can be caused by acute problems." Cf. Thomas v. Elephant Run , 814 P.2d 496 , 498 n. 5 (Okla. 1991) (noting 2003Section 25-5-1(9) states, in pertinent part: "Injury shall include physical injury caused either by carpal tunnel syndrome disorder or by other cumulative trauma disorder if either disorder arises out of and in the course of the employment...." The Code definition of "injury" recognizes that carpal tunnel syndrome is usually classified as a "cumulative trauma disorder," or, as Dr. Autry put it, "a repetitive type of problem." But, as Dr. Autry also recognized, carpal tunnel syndrome "can be caused by acute problems." Cf. Thomas v. Elephant Run, 814 P.2d 496 , 498 n. 5 (Okla.1991) (noting that | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Ex Parte Berryhill
green
2 sentences2003Despite this difference in wording, the Terry court did state that "[t]he standard to be applied . . . is that applied . . . in Ex parte Berryhill [, 410 So.2d 416 (Ala. 1982).]" Ex parte Terry , 494 So.2d at 632 . 2003Despite this difference in wording, the Terry court did state that "[t]he standard to be applied ... is that applied ... in Ex parte Berryhill [, 410 So.2d 416 (Ala.1982).]" Ex parte Terry, 494 So.2d at 632 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Hamilton v. State
green
1 sentence1999See T.H. v. State Dep’t of Human Resources, 740 So.2d 1089 (Ala.Civ.App.1998); Hamilton v. State, 410 So.2d 64 (Ala.Civ.App.1982). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore
green
2 sentences1997The Supreme Court of the United States vacated this Court's judgment and remanded this case for reconsideration in light of BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 , 116 S.Ct. 1589 , 134 L.Ed.2d 809 (1996) ("BMW"). 1997The Supreme Court of the United States vacated this Court's judgment and remanded this case for reconsideration in light of BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 , 116 S.Ct. 1589 , 134 L.Ed.2d 809 (1996) ("BMW"). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Sperau v. Ford Motor Co.
green
1 sentence1997On appeal, this Court adopted the trial court's order and refused to make any reduction in the $6 million punitive award, in large part because: "`There was ... evidence from which the jury could determine, by a clear and convincing standard, that the deception of the Plaintiffs was committed with Ford's knowledge of the financial condition of the Plaintiffs, their degree of experience, the profitability and loss experience of black dealers participating in the Minority Dealer Program under circumstances similar to the Plaintiffs, and the economic impact the failure of the dealership would hav | 1 | 1997–1997 |
OM v. State
green
1 sentence1996Yet it is a perfect example of how all too often the orderly development of legal principles has been hindered by our burgeoning caseload. 1 Not only does this case illustrate this point by its questionable facts, but also by the trial court’s failure to apply the clear and convincing standard established by this court in O.M. v. State, 595 So.2d 514 (Ala.Cr.App.1991). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
DDP v. State
green
1 sentence1995D.D.P., supra. The court found Casemia Jones’s testimony credible. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Pinson v. Veach
green
1 sentence1985Pinson, 388 So.2d at 966 . | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.