Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
15 Alabama opinions name it 3 courts 1861–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Layne v. Garnergreen2 sentences2006In Layne v. Garner , this Court first undertook to announce an explicit standard for determining whether a contract or contractual provision is unconscionable: "`In addition to finding that one party was unsophisticated and/or uneducated, a court should ask (1) whether there was an absence of meaningful choice on one party's part, (2) whether the contractual terms are unreasonably favorable to one party, (3) whether there was unequal bargaining power among the parties, and (4) whether there were oppressive, one-sided, or patently unfair terms in the contract.' " 612 So.2d at 408 . `For ease of 2004In Layne v. Garner , this Court first undertook to announce an explicit standard for determining whether a contract or contractual provision is unconscionable: "In addition to finding that one party was unsophisticated and/or uneducated, a court should ask (1) whether there was an absence of meaningful choice on one party's part, (2) whether the contractual terms are unreasonably favorable to one party, (3) whether there was unequal bargaining power among the parties, and (4) whether there were oppressive, one-sided, or patently unfair terms in the contract." 612 So.2d at 408 . | 3 | 6 |
Matter of Trust Created Under Agreementgreen2 sentences2008Finally, In re Trust Created Under Agreement Dated September 19, 1983, 469 N.E.2d 768, 772 (Ind.Ct.App.1984), involves the interpretation of Indiana's interstate forum non conveniens statute by the courts of that state, which require a showing that a "substantial injustice is likely to result" if a case is tried in that state. 2008Finally, In re Trust Created Under Agreement Dated September 19, 1983, 469 N.E.2d 768, 772 (Ind.Ct.App.1984), involves the interpretation of Indiana's interstate forum non conve-niens statute by the courts of that state, which require a showing that a "substantial injustice is likely to result” if a case is tried in that state. | 2 | 2 |
Beagle v. Beaglegreen2 sentences2002See also Brooks v. Parkerson, 265 Ga. 189, 194 , 454 S.E.2d 769, 773 (1995) (holding a grandparent-visitation statute unconstitutional because it did not contain a provision that the state may impose grandparent visitation over the parents' objections only on a showing that failing to do so would be harmful to the child); Beagle v. Beagle, 678 So.2d 1271, 1276 (Fla.1996) (acknowledging the argument that harm or detriment is always an element of a best-interests analysis, but electing to hold Florida's grandparent-visitation statute unconstitutional because of the absence of an explicit require 2002See also Brooks v. Parkerson, 265 Ga. 189, 194 , 454 S.E.2d 769, 773 (1995) (holding a grandparent-visitation statute unconstitutional because it did not contain a provision that the state may impose grandparent visitation over the parents’ objections only on a showing that failing to do so would be harmful to the child); Beagle v. Beagle, 678 So.2d 1271, 1276 (Fla.1996) (acknowledging the argument that harm or detriment is always an element of a best-interests analysis, but electing to hold Florida’s grandparent-visitation statute unconstitutional because of the absence of an explicit require | 2 | 2 |
In Re Harrisgreen2 sentences2002See also In re Marriage of Harris, 112 Cal.Rptr.2d 127, 135, 142 (2001) (California’s Constitution requires “grandparent seeking visitation rights over the objection of a fit parent to show by clear and convincing evidence that the parent’s decision would be detrimental to the child”)(opinion superseded pending review by California Supreme Court, 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 191 , 37 P.3d 379 (2002)); In re Herbst, 971 P.2d 395 (Okla.1998) (pre- Troxel holding that, although Oklahoma statute by its terms permitted a court to grant grandparent visitation merely if the court found it to be “in the best inter 2002See also In re Marriage of Harris, 112 Cal.Rptr.2d 127, 135, 142 (2001) (California’s Constitution requires “grandparent seeking visitation rights over the objection of a fit parent to show by clear and convincing evidence that the parent’s decision would be detrimental to the child”)(opinion superseded pending review by California Supreme Court, 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 191 , 37 P.3d 379 (2002)); In re Herbst, 971 P.2d 395 (Okla.1998) (pre- Troxel holding that, although Oklahoma statute by its terms permitted a court to grant grandparent visitation merely if the court found it to be “in the best inter | 2 | 2 |
Hawk v. Hawkgreen2 sentences2002See also In re Marriage of Harris, 112 Cal.Rptr.2d 127, 135, 142 (2001) (California's Constitution requires "grandparent seeking visitation rights over the objection of a fit parent to show by clear and convincing evidence that the parent's decision would be detrimental to the child")(opinion superseded pending review by California Supreme Court, 115 Cal. Rptr.2d 191 , 37 P.3d 379 (2002)); In re Herbst, 971 P.2d 395 (Okla.1998) (pre- Troxel holding that, although Oklahoma statute by its terms permitted a court to grant grandparent visitation merely if the court found it to be "in the best inte 2002See also In re Marriage of Harris, 112 Cal.Rptr.2d 127, 135, 142 (2001) (California’s Constitution requires “grandparent seeking visitation rights over the objection of a fit parent to show by clear and convincing evidence that the parent’s decision would be detrimental to the child”)(opinion superseded pending review by California Supreme Court, 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 191 , 37 P.3d 379 (2002)); In re Herbst, 971 P.2d 395 (Okla.1998) (pre- Troxel holding that, although Oklahoma statute by its terms permitted a court to grant grandparent visitation merely if the court found it to be “in the best inter | 2 | 2 |
Neal v. Leegreen2 sentences2002See also In re Marriage of Harris, 112 Cal.Rptr.2d 127, 135, 142 (2001) (California's Constitution requires "grandparent seeking visitation rights over the objection of a fit parent to show by clear and convincing evidence that the parent's decision would be detrimental to the child")(opinion superseded pending review by California Supreme Court, 115 Cal. Rptr.2d 191 , 37 P.3d 379 (2002)); In re Herbst, 971 P.2d 395 (Okla.1998) (pre- Troxel holding that, although Oklahoma statute by its terms permitted a court to grant grandparent visitation merely if the court found it to be "in the best inte 2002See also In re Marriage of Harris, 112 Cal.Rptr.2d 127, 135, 142 (2001) (California’s Constitution requires “grandparent seeking visitation rights over the objection of a fit parent to show by clear and convincing evidence that the parent’s decision would be detrimental to the child”)(opinion superseded pending review by California Supreme Court, 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 191 , 37 P.3d 379 (2002)); In re Herbst, 971 P.2d 395 (Okla.1998) (pre- Troxel holding that, although Oklahoma statute by its terms permitted a court to grant grandparent visitation merely if the court found it to be “in the best inter | 2 | 2 |
Brooks v. Parkersongreen2 sentences2002See also Brooks v. Parkerson, 265 Ga. 189, 194 , 454 S.E.2d 769, 773 (1995) (holding a grandparent-visitation statute unconstitutional because it did not contain a provision that the state may impose grandparent visitation over the parents’ objections only on a showing that failing to do so would be harmful to the child); Beagle v. Beagle, 678 So.2d 1271, 1276 (Fla.1996) (acknowledging the argument that harm or detriment is always an element of a best-interests analysis, but electing to hold Florida’s grandparent-visitation statute unconstitutional because of the absence of an explicit require 2002See also Brooks v. Parkerson, 265 Ga. 189, 194 , 454 S.E.2d 769, 773 (1995) (holding a grandparent-visitation statute unconstitutional because it did not contain a provision that the state may impose grandparent visitation over the parents’ objections only on a showing that failing to do so would be harmful to the child); Beagle v. Beagle, 678 So.2d 1271, 1276 (Fla.1996) (acknowledging the argument that harm or detriment is always an element of a best-interests analysis, but electing to hold Florida’s grandparent-visitation statute unconstitutional because of the absence of an explicit require | 2 | 2 |
American General Finance, Inc. v. Branchgreen2 sentences2002I understand that it is my responsibility to consult with my Human Resource director if I have any questions." Near the bottom of the form is a line reading: "Dispute Resolution Program Effective Date: January 1, 1998." In American General Finance v. Branch, supra , this Court stated: "`"Although Alabama law lacks an explicit standard for determining whether a contract or contractual provision is unconscionable, case law reveals that four factors are important in making this determination. "`"In addition to finding that one party was unsophisticated and/or uneducated, a court should ask (1) wh 2002I understand that it is my responsibility to consult with my Human Resource director if I have any questions." Near the bottom of the form is a line reading: "Dispute Resolution Program Effective Date: January 1, 1998." In American General Finance v. Branch, supra , this Court stated: "`"Although Alabama law lacks an explicit standard for determining whether a contract or contractual provision is unconscionable, case law reveals that four factors are important in making this determination. "`"In addition to finding that one party was unsophisticated and/or uneducated, a court should ask (1) wh | 1 | 2 |
Harrington v. Daumgreen1 sentence2002See also In re Marriage of Harris, 112 Cal.Rptr.2d 127, 135, 142 (2001) (California's Constitution requires "grandparent seeking visitation rights over the objection of a fit parent to show by clear and convincing evidence that the parent's decision would be detrimental to the child")(opinion superseded pending review by California Supreme Court, 115 Cal. Rptr.2d 191 , 37 P.3d 379 (2002)); In re Herbst, 971 P.2d 395 (Okla.1998) (pre- Troxel holding that, although Oklahoma statute by its terms permitted a court to grant grandparent visitation merely if the court found it to be "in the best inte | 1 | 1 |
People v. Brunnergreen2 sentences1982See People v. Brunner , 32 Cal.App.3d 908 , 108 Cal.Rptr. 501 (1973). 1982See People v. Brunner , 32 Cal.App.3d 908 , 108 Cal.Rptr. 501 (1973). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Herbst v. Sayre
green
2 sentences2002See also In re Marriage of Harris, 112 Cal.Rptr.2d 127, 135, 142 (2001) (California's Constitution requires "grandparent seeking visitation rights over the objection of a fit parent to show by clear and convincing evidence that the parent's decision would be detrimental to the child")(opinion superseded pending review by California Supreme Court, 115 Cal. Rptr.2d 191 , 37 P.3d 379 (2002)); In re Herbst, 971 P.2d 395 (Okla.1998) (pre- Troxel holding that, although Oklahoma statute by its terms permitted a court to grant grandparent visitation merely if the court found it to be "in the best inte 2002See also In re Marriage of Harris, 112 Cal.Rptr.2d 127, 135, 142 (2001) (California’s Constitution requires “grandparent seeking visitation rights over the objection of a fit parent to show by clear and convincing evidence that the parent’s decision would be detrimental to the child”)(opinion superseded pending review by California Supreme Court, 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 191 , 37 P.3d 379 (2002)); In re Herbst, 971 P.2d 395 (Okla.1998) (pre- Troxel holding that, although Oklahoma statute by its terms permitted a court to grant grandparent visitation merely if the court found it to be “in the best inter | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Ex Parte Yancey
green
1 sentence2024The plaintiffs argue that the defendants acted beyond their authority by violating certain provisions in the information guide related 3In Caldwell, 77 So. 3d at 569 , this Court held that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether a teacher had engaged in conduct that constituted an explicit violation of school-board policy, thus precluding a summary judgment, and, in Ex parte Yancey, 8 So. 3d at 307 , this Court held that a teacher's conduct was a "clear violation of the policy set forth in the student handbook, to which [the teacher was] bound." 13 SC-2023-0201 to the Alternativ | 1 | 2024–2024 |
N.C. v. Caldwell
green
1 sentence2024The plaintiffs argue that the defendants acted beyond their authority by violating certain provisions in the information guide related 3In Caldwell, 77 So. 3d at 569 , this Court held that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether a teacher had engaged in conduct that constituted an explicit violation of school-board policy, thus precluding a summary judgment, and, in Ex parte Yancey, 8 So. 3d at 307 , this Court held that a teacher's conduct was a "clear violation of the policy set forth in the student handbook, to which [the teacher was] bound." 13 SC-2023-0201 to the Alternativ | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Wilson v. World Omni Leasing, Inc.
green
1 sentence2001"Further, in Wilson v. World Omni Leasing, Inc., 540 So.2d 713 (Ala.1989), the Supreme Court observed: "`Comment (1) of the official comments to § 7-2-302 sets out the basic test to determine unconscionability: "`"[W]hether, in the light of the general commercial background and the commercial needs of the particular trade or case, the clauses involved are so one-sided as to be unconscionable under the circumstances existing at the time of the making of the contract.... | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Hume v. United States
green
1 sentence2000"In addition to finding that one party was unsophisticated and/or uneducated, a court should ask (1) whether there was an absence of meaningful choice on one party's part, (2) whether the contractual terms are unreasonably favorable to one party, (3) whether there was unequal bargaining power among the parties, and (4) whether there were oppressive, one-sided, or patently unfair terms in the contract." Id. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Odess v. Taylor
green
2 sentences1990In Odess v. Taylor, 282 Ala. 389 , 211 So.2d 805 (1968), the Court addressed a noncompetition agreement between two doctors, Dr. Odess and Dr. Taylor. 1990In Odess v. Taylor, 282 Ala. 389 , 211 So.2d 805 (1968), the Court addressed a noncompetition agreement between two doctors, Dr. Odess and Dr. Taylor. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Sheppard v. Shelton
green
1 sentence1861The decision in Sheppard v. Shelton, 34 Ala. 652 , was made upon the authority of Stallings v. Newman, our attention not having been called To the provision of the Code above stated; and we do not regard it as a correct statement of the law as it exists since the adoption of the Code. [3.] If there was any error in theadmission of the answer of the witness Jordan to the third direct interrogatory, it was cured by the subsequent withdrawal of that evidence from the jury, and the explicit instruction of the court to the jury, that they must not regard it as evidence, and must not look to it as e | 1 | 1861–1861 |
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.