15 Alabama opinions name it 3 courts 1908–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Uncle Ben's, Inc. v. Crowellgreen1 sentence2015Importation into one state from another is the indispensable element, the test, of interstate commerce; and every negotiation, contract, trade, and dealing between citizens of different states, which contemplates and causes such importation, whether it be of good, person, or information, is a transaction of interstate commerce.””’ (quoting Uncle Ben's, Inc. v. Crowell, 482 F.Supp. 1149, 1154 (E.D.Ark.1980), quoting in turn Furst v. Brewster, 282 U.S. 493, 497 , 51 S.Ct. 295 , 75 L.Ed. 478 (1931))); and Ex parte Dyess, 709 So.2d 447, 450 (Ala.1997) (“[T]he policy issued by American Hardware [In | 1 | 1 |
DecisionQuest, Inc. v. Hayesgreen1 sentence2015See, e.g., America’s Home Place, Inc. v. Rampey, 166 So.3d 655 , 661 n. 2 (Ala.2014) (indicating that the interstate-commerce requirement is met when a contract showed on its face that the company constructing a house in Alabama “listed its place of business as being in ‘Hall County, Gainesville, GA’ ”); DecisionQuest, Inc. v. Hayes, 863 So.2d 90, 95 (Ala.2003) (“ ‘ “[A]ll interstate commerce is not sales of goods. | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Dyessgreen1 sentence2015Importation into one state from another is the indispensable element, the test, of interstate commerce; and every negotiation, contract, trade, and dealing between citizens of different states, which contemplates and causes such importation, whether it be of good, person, or information, is a transaction of interstate commerce.””’ (quoting Uncle Ben's, Inc. v. Crowell, 482 F.Supp. 1149, 1154 (E.D.Ark.1980), quoting in turn Furst v. Brewster, 282 U.S. 493, 497 , 51 S.Ct. 295 , 75 L.Ed. 478 (1931))); and Ex parte Dyess, 709 So.2d 447, 450 (Ala.1997) (“[T]he policy issued by American Hardware [In | 1 | 1 |
America's Home Place, Inc. v. Gregory Rampeygreen1 sentence2015See, e.g., America’s Home Place, Inc. v. Rampey, 166 So.3d 655 , 661 n. 2 (Ala.2014) (indicating that the interstate-commerce requirement is met when a contract showed on its face that the company constructing a house in Alabama “listed its place of business as being in ‘Hall County, Gainesville, GA’ ”); DecisionQuest, Inc. v. Hayes, 863 So.2d 90, 95 (Ala.2003) (“ ‘ “[A]ll interstate commerce is not sales of goods. | 1 | 1 |
Gayfer Montgomery Fair Co. v. Austingreen2 sentences2003However, as we have previously noted, see, e.g., Wolff Motor Co. v. White, 869 So.2d 1129, 1132 (Ala.2003); Gayfer Montgomery Fair Co. v. Austin, 870 So.2d 683, 692 (Ala.2003), the interstate-commerce analysis in Sisters of the Visitation was expressly rejected in Citizens Bank . 2003However, as we have previously noted, see, e.g., Wolff Motor Co. v. White , 869 So.2d 1129 , 1132 (Ala. 2003); Gayfer Montgomery Fair Co. v. Austin , 870 So.2d 683 , 692 (Ala. 2003), the interstate-commerce analysis in Sisters of the Visitation was expressly rejected in Citizens Bank. | 1 | 1 |
American Freight System, Inc. v. Consumer Products Associates (In Re American Freight System, Inc.)green2 sentences2003This Court has held that "`to prevail on an assertion of arbitrability, the moving party is required to produce some evidence which tends to establish its claim,'" Jim Burke Auto., Inc. v. Beavers, 674 So.2d 1260, 1265 (Ala.1995) (opinion on application for rehearing) (quoting In re American Freight Sys., Inc., 164 B.R. 341, 345 (D.Kan.1994)), and "`has the burden of proving the existence *1038 of a contract calling for arbitration and proving that that contract involves a transaction affecting interstate commerce.'" Tefco Fin. 2003This Court has held that "`to prevail on an assertion of arbitrability, the moving party is required to produce some evidence which tends to establish its claim,'" Jim Burke Auto., Inc. v. Beavers , 674 So.2d 1260 , 1265 (Ala. 1995) (opinion on application for rehearing) (quoting In re American Freight Sys., Inc. , 164 B.R. 341 , 345 (D.Kan. 1994)), and "`has the burden of proving the existence *Page 1038 of a contract calling for arbitration and proving that that contract involves a transaction affecting interstate commerce .'" Tefco Fin. | 1 | 1 |
Wolff Motor Co. v. Whitegreen2 sentences2003However, as we have previously noted, see, e.g., Wolff Motor Co. v. White, 869 So.2d 1129, 1132 (Ala.2003); Gayfer Montgomery Fair Co. v. Austin, 870 So.2d 683, 692 (Ala.2003), the interstate-commerce analysis in Sisters of the Visitation was expressly rejected in Citizens Bank . 2003However, as we have previously noted, see, e.g., Wolff Motor Co. v. White , 869 So.2d 1129 , 1132 (Ala. 2003); Gayfer Montgomery Fair Co. v. Austin , 870 So.2d 683 , 692 (Ala. 2003), the interstate-commerce analysis in Sisters of the Visitation was expressly rejected in Citizens Bank. | 1 | 1 |
Jim Burke Automotive, Inc. v. Beaversgreen2 sentences2003This Court has held that "`to prevail on an assertion of arbitrability, the moving party is required to produce some evidence which tends to establish its claim,'" Jim Burke Auto., Inc. v. Beavers, 674 So.2d 1260, 1265 (Ala.1995) (opinion on application for rehearing) (quoting In re American Freight Sys., Inc., 164 B.R. 341, 345 (D.Kan.1994)), and "`has the burden of proving the existence *1038 of a contract calling for arbitration and proving that that contract involves a transaction affecting interstate commerce.'" Tefco Fin. 2003This Court has held that "`to prevail on an assertion of arbitrability, the moving party is required to produce some evidence which tends to establish its claim,'" Jim Burke Auto., Inc. v. Beavers , 674 So.2d 1260 , 1265 (Ala. 1995) (opinion on application for rehearing) (quoting In re American Freight Sys., Inc. , 164 B.R. 341 , 345 (D.Kan. 1994)), and "`has the burden of proving the existence *Page 1038 of a contract calling for arbitration and proving that that contract involves a transaction affecting interstate commerce .'" Tefco Fin. | 1 | 1 |
Cornwall & Stevens Southeast, Inc. v. Stewartgreen2 sentences1999The court concluded that the action fell "within the interstate commerce exception to the Alabama door closing provisions." Id. at 1494 (emphasis added). 1999The court explained that "[t]he nature of the plaintiffs' business, insurance sales across state lines, [was] interstate." Id. | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Warrengreen1 sentence1990Thus, we hold that, under the narrow factual context of this case, there is no basis for invoking the FAA, and the arbitration clause contained in the contract cannot be enforced under Alabama law.” Ex parte Warren, 548 So.2d 157, 160 (Ala.1989) (“ Warren I”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Furst & Thomas v. Brewster
green
2 sentences2015Importation into one state from another is the indispensable element, the test, of interstate commerce; and every negotiation, contract, trade, and dealing between citizens of different states, which contemplates and causes such importation, whether it be of good, person, or information, is a transaction of interstate commerce.””’ (quoting Uncle Ben's, Inc. v. Crowell, 482 F.Supp. 1149, 1154 (E.D.Ark.1980), quoting in turn Furst v. Brewster, 282 U.S. 493, 497 , 51 S.Ct. 295 , 75 L.Ed. 478 (1931))); and Ex parte Dyess, 709 So.2d 447, 450 (Ala.1997) (“[T]he policy issued by American Hardware [In 2015Importation into one state from another is the indispensable element, the test, of interstate commerce; and every negotiation, contract, trade, and dealing between citizens of different states, which contemplates and causes such importation, whether it be of good, person, or information, is a transaction of interstate commerce.””’ (quoting Uncle Ben's, Inc. v. Crowell, 482 F.Supp. 1149, 1154 (E.D.Ark.1980), quoting in turn Furst v. Brewster, 282 U.S. 493, 497 , 51 S.Ct. 295 , 75 L.Ed. 478 (1931))); and Ex parte Dyess, 709 So.2d 447, 450 (Ala.1997) (“[T]he policy issued by American Hardware [In | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Penick v. Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge F & a M of Alabama, Inc.
green
1 sentence2013As this Court stated in Penick, 46 So.3d at 425 -26: “A foreign corporation’s failure to obtain authorization to do business in Alabama is a capacity defense and does not per se implicate standing and subject-matter jurisdiction. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Sisters of Visitation v. COCHRAN PLASTERING CO. INC.
green
1 sentence2001This Court found five factors to be particularly pertinent in an interstate-commerce analysis: (1) the citizenship of the parties; (2) the source of the "tools and equipment" necessary to consummate the transaction; (3) the "allocation of costs of services and materials"; (4) the subsequent movement, if any, of the "object of the services" across state lines; and (5) the "degree of separability from other contracts" involved in the transaction. 775 So.2d at 765-67 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Ex Parte Costa and Head (Atrium), Ltd.
green
1 sentence1990Even using the broad interstate commerce standard found in Ex parte Costa & Head [(Atrium), Ltd., 486 So.2d 1272 (Ala.1986) ], we must conclude that such a transaction does not have a sufficient nexus with interstate commerce activity to bring the contract within the coverage of the FAA. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Gibbons v. Ogden
green
1 sentence1989The cases echo the sentiments expressed in Gibbons v. Ogden , 22 U.S. (9 Wheaton) 1, 6 L.Ed. 23 (1824), wherein the Supreme Court denied the state's ability to regulate or burden the flow of interstate commerce. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Dairymen, Inc. And Farmbest Foods, Inc., William J. Baxley, Etc., Intervening v. Alabama Dairy Commission
neutral
1 sentence1979Dairymen, Inc. v. Alabama Dairy Commission, 584 F.2d 707 (5th Cir. 1978). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Alcohol Division of Department of Finance & Taxation v. State ex rel. Strawbridge
green
2 sentences1972Alcohol Division, etc., v. State, 258 Ala. 384 , 63 So.2d 358 ; Barnett v. State, 243 Ala. 410 , 9 So.2d 267 . 1972Alcohol Division, etc., v. State, 258 Ala. 384 , 63 So.2d 358 ; Barnett v. State, 243 Ala. 410 , 9 So.2d 267 . | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Barnett v. State Ex Rel. Milner
neutral
2 sentences1972Alcohol Division, etc., v. State, 258 Ala. 384 , 63 So.2d 358 ; Barnett v. State, 243 Ala. 410 , 9 So.2d 267 . 1972Alcohol Division, etc., v. State, 258 Ala. 384 , 63 So.2d 358 ; Barnett v. State, 243 Ala. 410 , 9 So.2d 267 . | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Henneford v. Silas Mason Co.
green
2 sentences1956Henneford v. Silas Mason Co., 300 U.S. 577 , 57 S.Ct. 524 , 81 L.Ed. 814 . 1956Henneford v. Silas Mason Co., 300 U.S. 577 , 57 S.Ct. 524 , 81 L.Ed. 814 . | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Coverdale v. Arkansas-Louisiana Pipe Line Co.
green
1 sentence1954It was a burden primarily on interstate commerce.” In the Coverdale case, supra [ 303 U.S. 604 , 58 S.Ct. 737 ]: “The question is whether a state statute imposing a privilege tax on the production of mechanical power contravenes the interstate commerce clause in so far as it is applied to an engine used to supply mechanical power to a compressor which increases the pressure of natural gas and thus permits it to be transported to purchasers in other states. ****** “The power used by the appellee is obtained from internal combustion engines which transform the potential energy of natural gas int | 1 | 1954–1954 |
City of Roanoke v. Stewart Grocery Co.
neutral
2 sentences1940City of Roanoke v. Stewart Grocery Co., 235 Ala. 23 , 176 So. 820 . (3) If the dealings of the defendant with his. customers in Roanoke are intrastate transactions, he is not protected by the interstate commerce clause of the Federal Constitution, U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, § 8, cl. 3. 1940City of Roanoke v. Stewart Grocery Co., 235 Ala. 23 , 176 So. 820 . (3) If the dealings of the defendant with his. customers in Roanoke are intrastate transactions, he is not protected by the interstate commerce clause of the Federal Constitution, U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, § 8, cl. 3. | 1 | 1940–1940 |
State v. Miller
neutral
2 sentences1915The Supreme Court of that state, in the case of McCollum v. McConaughy, 141 Iowa, 174 , 119 N. W. 540 , referring to a case decided by it prior to the Delamater Case, said: “It is evident ■* * * that the controlling consideration in reaching the conclusion that the statute was unconstitutional was the interpretation which it was thought the Supreme Court of the United States had given to the interstate commerce clause of the federal Constitution as affecting the validity of the statute, and that if the recent decision had then been announced, and had been ■considered by this court as applicabl 1915Va. 436 , 66 S. E. 522 Ann. | 1 | 1915–1915 |
Phelps v. . Racey
green
1 sentence1908The right to preserve game flows from the undoubted existence in the state of a police power to that end, which may be none the less efficiently called into play because by doing so interstate commerce may be remotely and indirectly affected. * * * Indeed, the source of the police power as to game birds (like those covered by the statute here called in question) flows from the duty of the state to preserve for its people a valuable food sup ply. — Phelps v. Recey, 60 N. Y. 10 , 19 Am. | 1 | 1908–1908 |
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.