15 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1846–2023 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Shewbart v. Shewbartgreen2 sentences2018The husband also argues that the wife failed to prove a need for periodic alimony, see Shewbart , 64 So.3d at 1087 ("A petitioning spouse proves a need for periodic alimony by showing that without such financial support he or she will be unable to maintain the parties' former marital lifestyle."), because, he says, "[t]he wife did not submit to the [trial] court an itemization of her anticipated future expenses post-divorce." Husband's brief at 47. 2018The husband also argues that the wife failed to prove a need for periodic alimony, see Shewbart , 64 So.3d at 1087 ("A petitioning spouse proves a need for periodic alimony by showing that without such financial support he or she will be unable to maintain the parties' former marital lifestyle."), because, he says, "[t]he wife did not submit to the [trial] court an itemization of her anticipated future expenses post-divorce." Husband's brief at 47. | 2 | 2 |
S.J.S. v. B.R.green1 sentence2023S.J.S. v. B.R., 949 So. 2d 941, 944 (Ala. Civ. | 1 | 1 |
Neal v. Nealgreen1 sentence2015See Ex parte Third Generation, Inc., 855 So.2d 489, 492 (Ala.2003) (discussing Neal [v. Neal, 856 So.2d 766 (Ala.2002) ], and concluding that a judgment is void if it violates principles of procedural due process).’” Ex parte Montgomery, 97 So.3d 148, 152-53 (Ala.Civ.App.2012) (quoting Ex parte Montgomery, 79 So.3d 660, 670 (Ala.Civ.App.2011)). | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Third Generation, Inc.green1 sentence2015See Ex parte Third Generation, Inc., 855 So.2d 489, 492 (Ala.2003) (discussing Neal [v. Neal, 856 So.2d 766 (Ala.2002) ], and concluding that a judgment is void if it violates principles of procedural due process).’” Ex parte Montgomery, 97 So.3d 148, 152-53 (Ala.Civ.App.2012) (quoting Ex parte Montgomery, 79 So.3d 660, 670 (Ala.Civ.App.2011)). | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Montgomery, 2100670 (ala.civ.app. 8-26-2011)green1 sentence2015See Ex parte Third Generation, Inc., 855 So.2d 489, 492 (Ala.2003) (discussing Neal [v. Neal, 856 So.2d 766 (Ala.2002) ], and concluding that a judgment is void if it violates principles of procedural due process).’” Ex parte Montgomery, 97 So.3d 148, 152-53 (Ala.Civ.App.2012) (quoting Ex parte Montgomery, 79 So.3d 660, 670 (Ala.Civ.App.2011)). | 1 | 1 |
Montgomery v. Montgomerygreen1 sentence2015See Ex parte Third Generation, Inc., 855 So.2d 489, 492 (Ala.2003) (discussing Neal [v. Neal, 856 So.2d 766 (Ala.2002) ], and concluding that a judgment is void if it violates principles of procedural due process).’” Ex parte Montgomery, 97 So.3d 148, 152-53 (Ala.Civ.App.2012) (quoting Ex parte Montgomery, 79 So.3d 660, 670 (Ala.Civ.App.2011)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Born v. Clark
green
2 sentences2018Born v. Clark , 662 So.2d 669 , 672 (Ala. 1995). 2018Born v. Clark , 662 So.2d 669 , 672 (Ala. 1995). | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Littleton v. Littleton
green
2 sentences1983To like effect are Littleton v. Littleton , 224 Ala. 103 , 139 So. 335 ; Horan v. Horan , 259 Ala. 117 , 65 So.2d 486 ; Coon v. Coon , 264 Ala. 127 , 85 So.2d 430 . 1983To like effect are Littleton v. Littleton , 224 Ala. 103 , 139 So. 335 ; Horan v. Horan , 259 Ala. 117 , 65 So.2d 486 ; Coon v. Coon , 264 Ala. 127 , 85 So.2d 430 . | 2 | 1960–1983 |
Ford v. Ford
green
2 sentences1983"In Ford v. Ford , 201 Ala. 519 , 78 So. 873 , we held that a husband could not claim exemption of his homestead against a levy of execution upon his land to enforce payment of alimony pendente lite because a decree for alimony was not a `debt contracted' within the meaning of the constitutional and statutory provisions relating to homestead exemptions. 1983"In Ford v. Ford , 201 Ala. 519 , 78 So. 873 , we held that a husband could not claim exemption of his homestead against a levy of execution upon his land to enforce payment of alimony pendente lite because a decree for alimony was not a `debt contracted' within the meaning of the constitutional and statutory provisions relating to homestead exemptions. | 2 | 1960–1983 |
Coon v. Coon
green
2 sentences1983To like effect are Littleton v. Littleton , 224 Ala. 103 , 139 So. 335 ; Horan v. Horan , 259 Ala. 117 , 65 So.2d 486 ; Coon v. Coon , 264 Ala. 127 , 85 So.2d 430 . 1983To like effect are Littleton v. Littleton , 224 Ala. 103 , 139 So. 335 ; Horan v. Horan , 259 Ala. 117 , 65 So.2d 486 ; Coon v. Coon , 264 Ala. 127 , 85 So.2d 430 . | 2 | 1960–1983 |
Horan v. Horan
green
2 sentences1983To like effect are Littleton v. Littleton , 224 Ala. 103 , 139 So. 335 ; Horan v. Horan , 259 Ala. 117 , 65 So.2d 486 ; Coon v. Coon , 264 Ala. 127 , 85 So.2d 430 . 1983To like effect are Littleton v. Littleton , 224 Ala. 103 , 139 So. 335 ; Horan v. Horan , 259 Ala. 117 , 65 So.2d 486 ; Coon v. Coon , 264 Ala. 127 , 85 So.2d 430 . | 2 | 1960–1983 |
Hodge v. Hovey
green
1 sentence1999Hodge , supra . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Gamble v. Gamble
neutral
1 sentence1991In the recent case of Gamble v. Gamble, 562 So.2d 1343 (Ala.Civ.App.1990), this court opined that “the state trial court should have the discretion to allocate the dependency exemption and, if necessary to the enforcement of the allocation, to require the custodial parent to execute a valid [26 U.S.C.] § 152(e)(2) release.” In her brief, the wife recognizes the existence of Gamble but argues that it is inapplicable as a result of the recent enactment of the child support guidelines. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Sellers v. Sellers
green
2 sentences1947Sellers v. Sellers, 212 Ala. 290 , 102 So. 442 . 1947Sellers v. Sellers, 212 Ala. 290 , 102 So. 442 . | 1 | 1947–1947 |
Clow v. Chapman
green
2 sentences1917In Holmes v. Holmes, 133 Ind. 386 , 32 N. E. 932 , it was held that the alienation of the affections of a woman’s husband being a violation of her personal rights, she may sue therefor in her own name, under Revised Statutes 1881, § 5131, providing that “a married woman may sue in her own name for an injury to the person.” Some of the statutes, held to confer on the wife this right of suit for alienation contain the expression, “for any violation of her personal rights.” Clow v. Chapman, 125 Mo. 101 , 28 S. W. 328 , 26 L. 1917In Holmes v. Holmes, 133 Ind. 386 , 32 N. E. 932 , it was held that the alienation of the affections of a woman’s husband being a violation of her personal rights, she may sue therefor in her own name, under Revised Statutes 1881, § 5131, providing that “a married woman may sue in her own name for an injury to the person.” Some of the statutes, held to confer on the wife this right of suit for alienation contain the expression, “for any violation of her personal rights.” Clow v. Chapman, 125 Mo. 101 , 28 S. W. 328 , 26 L. | 1 | 1917–1917 |
Holmes v. Holmes
green
2 sentences1917In Holmes v. Holmes, 133 Ind. 386 , 32 N. E. 932 , it was held that the alienation of the affections of a woman’s husband being a violation of her personal rights, she may sue therefor in her own name, under Revised Statutes 1881, § 5131, providing that “a married woman may sue in her own name for an injury to the person.” Some of the statutes, held to confer on the wife this right of suit for alienation contain the expression, “for any violation of her personal rights.” Clow v. Chapman, 125 Mo. 101 , 28 S. W. 328 , 26 L. 1917In Holmes v. Holmes, 133 Ind. 386 , 32 N. E. 932 , it was held that the alienation of the affections of a woman’s husband being a violation of her personal rights, she may sue therefor in her own name, under Revised Statutes 1881, § 5131, providing that “a married woman may sue in her own name for an injury to the person.” Some of the statutes, held to confer on the wife this right of suit for alienation contain the expression, “for any violation of her personal rights.” Clow v. Chapman, 125 Mo. 101 , 28 S. W. 328 , 26 L. | 1 | 1917–1917 |
Marbury Lumber Co. v. Woolfolk
neutral
1 sentence1916Co. v. Woolfolk, 186 Ala. 254, 255 , 65 South. 44 , where husband and wife executed a mortgage on the property belonging to them in severalty to secure what purported to be a loan to them, it was held that the wife was prima facie liable, but that she was not estopped to show that she executed the mortgage in truth and in fact as surety for the husband in violation of section 4497 of the Code of 1907. | 1 | 1916–1916 |
Randall v. Shrader
neutral
1 sentence1911In a sub sequent case, however, this court held that, under a similar agreement as to personal property, the husband could not claim any interest in the same after the death Of the wife. — Randall, Adm’r, v. Shrader, 20 Ala. 338, 344 . | 1 | 1911–1911 |
Gallego v. Chevallie
neutral
1 sentence1846Rep. 497; 16 Id. 413 ; 20 Pick. | 1 | 1846–1846 |
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.