15 Alabama opinions name it 3 courts 1968–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Henderson v. Hendersongreen2 sentences2024See Henderson v. Henderson, 123 So. 3d 974, 977-78 (Ala. Civ. 2023See Henderson v. Henderson, 123 So. 3d 974, 977-78 (Ala. Civ. | 4 | 4 |
Foisie v. Worcester Polytechnic Inst.green1 sentence2025Nat'l Ass'n, 804 F.3d 316, 320 (3d Cir. 2015); Foisie v. Worcester Polytechnic Inst., 967 F.3d 27, 44 (1st Cir. 2020); Simmons v. UBS Fin. | 1 | 1 |
Leyse v. Bank of America National Ass'ngreen1 sentence2025Nat'l Ass'n, 804 F.3d 316, 320 (3d Cir. 2015); Foisie v. Worcester Polytechnic Inst., 967 F.3d 27, 44 (1st Cir. 2020); Simmons v. UBS Fin. | 1 | 1 |
Sturdivant v. BAC Home Loans Servicinggreen1 sentence2025See Ex parte BAC, 159 So. 3d at 46 (noting that " '[l]ack of statutory authorization best supports analysis as the lack of a claim upon which relief can be granted, … not a claim over which the forum court lacks subject matter jurisdiction' " (quoting Jerome A. Hoffman, The Malignant Mystique of "Standing," 73 Ala. Law. 360, 362 (2012))); MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC v. Lundbeck LLC, 130 F.4th 91 , 102 n.5 (4th Cir. 2025) (noting that the term " 'statutory standing' " is " 'misleading' " because it " 'does not implicate subject- 14 SC-2023-0610 matter jurisdiction' " (quoting Lexmark Int'l, | 1 | 1 |
Affinity Hospital, L.L.C. v. Willifordgreen1 sentence2016See also Affinity Hosp., L.L.C. v. Williford, 21 So.3d 712, 718 (Ala.2009) (holding that an administrator ad litem is a "personal representative” for purposes of prosecuting a wrongful-death action). , To the extent that the prior decisions cited in Alabama Power discuss the lack of a requirement to plead and prove that one is a personal representative for purposes of the wrongful-death statute, and such discussion indicates that the issue is one of "capacity,” the more recent caselaw discussed above has called any such inference into question. | 1 | 1 |
Hamm v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.green1 sentence2013Co., 52 So.3d 484, 499 (Ala.2010) (Lyons, J., concurring specially); Ex parte McKinney, 87 So.3d [502] at 512 [ (Ala.2011) ] (Murdock, J., dissenting) (‘Our courts too often have treated as a matter of subject-matter jurisdiction that which does not go to the fundamental authority of the courts to decide a case.’)- Such needless expansion was very recently criticized by the inimitable Professor Hoffman in an article appearing in THE ALABAMA LAWYER, Vol. 73, No. 5 361 (Sept. 2012), entitled, ‘The Malignant Mystique of “Standing ” ’: “ ‘Lack of statutory authorization best supports analysis as t | 1 | 1 |
Prince v. Stategreen1 sentence2009Cf., Prince v. State, 354 So.2d 1186, 1192 (Ala.Crim.App.1977)(“The fact that the appellant repeatedly and energetically inquired about the pending charges against him is a strong indication that the outstanding untried charge had a depressive effect on him.”). | 1 | 1 |
Phillips v. Stategreen1 sentence2007It is well settled that “ ‘ “[u]nder the doctrine of invited error, a defendant cannot by his own voluntary conduct invite error and then seek to profit thereby.” Phillips v. State, 527 So.2d 154, 156 (Ala.1988). | 1 | 1 |
Cuevas v. W.E. Walker, Inc.green1 sentence1995Walker, Inc., 565 So.2d 176, 177 (Ala.1990), this Court stated: “ ‘It is well settled that a storekeeper is under a duty to exercise reasonable care in providing and maintaining reasonably safe premises for the use of his customers.’ As a general rule, an invitor will not be liable for injuries to an invitee resulting from a danger that was known to the invitee or should have been observed by the invitee in the exercise of reasonable care.” (Citations omitted.) The Gables argue that they presented substantial evidence to establish a question of fact as to whether the darkness of the night and | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC v. Lundbeck LLC
green
1 sentence2025See Ex parte BAC, 159 So. 3d at 46 (noting that " '[l]ack of statutory authorization best supports analysis as the lack of a claim upon which relief can be granted, … not a claim over which the forum court lacks subject matter jurisdiction' " (quoting Jerome A. Hoffman, The Malignant Mystique of "Standing," 73 Ala. Law. 360, 362 (2012))); MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC v. Lundbeck LLC, 130 F.4th 91 , 102 n.5 (4th Cir. 2025) (noting that the term " 'statutory standing' " is " 'misleading' " because it " 'does not implicate subject- 14 SC-2023-0610 matter jurisdiction' " (quoting Lexmark Int'l, | 1 | 2025–2025 |
William B. Newton v. Duke Energy Florida, LLC
green
1 sentence2025See Ex parte BAC, 159 So. 3d at 46 (noting that " '[l]ack of statutory authorization best supports analysis as the lack of a claim upon which relief can be granted, … not a claim over which the forum court lacks subject matter jurisdiction' " (quoting Jerome A. Hoffman, The Malignant Mystique of "Standing," 73 Ala. Law. 360, 362 (2012))); MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC v. Lundbeck LLC, 130 F.4th 91 , 102 n.5 (4th Cir. 2025) (noting that the term " 'statutory standing' " is " 'misleading' " because it " 'does not implicate subject- 14 SC-2023-0610 matter jurisdiction' " (quoting Lexmark Int'l, | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.
green
1 sentence2025See Ex parte BAC, 159 So. 3d at 46 (noting that " '[l]ack of statutory authorization best supports analysis as the lack of a claim upon which relief can be granted, … not a claim over which the forum court lacks subject matter jurisdiction' " (quoting Jerome A. Hoffman, The Malignant Mystique of "Standing," 73 Ala. Law. 360, 362 (2012))); MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC v. Lundbeck LLC, 130 F.4th 91 , 102 n.5 (4th Cir. 2025) (noting that the term " 'statutory standing' " is " 'misleading' " because it " 'does not implicate subject- 14 SC-2023-0610 matter jurisdiction' " (quoting Lexmark Int'l, | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Dana Isbell v. Rogers Auto Sales.
green
1 sentence2023App. 2013); and Isbell, supra. Although the mother raised other arguments in her postjudgment motion, the lack of a hearing on the propriety of the visitation award is dispositive, and we express no opinion as to the validity of the other arguments raised by the mother and pretermit discussion of them. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
City of Brighton v. Gibson
green
1 sentence2011I cannot conclude that the legislature intended to say: “We choose by statute to give this power to mayors as a general rule, but only to the extent that a local city council does not override our choice and elect to assign this power to itself.” I am not more inclined to accept this notion merely because the legislature has given the city council the general legislative authority to enact ordinances. 4 Nor am I persuaded by the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals in City of Brighton v. Gibson, 501 So.2d 1239 (Ala.Civ.App.1987), which actually is a ruling in favor of the mayor in that case a | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Ford Motor Co. v. Sperau
green
1 sentence2000For example, we have held to be constitutionally acceptable ratios of punitive damages to compensatory damages ranging from 1:1 in Ford Motor Co. v. Sperau, 708 So.2d 111 (Ala.1997), to 121:1 in Foremost Ins. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Alabama State Federation of Labor v. McAdory
green
2 sentences1989In their present codification, they trace to the Act of 1935. 1 "Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia. 2 "As in other parts of this report, the District of Columbia is treated hereafter as a State." 7 Appeal dismissed, 325 U.S. 450 , 65 S.Ct. 1384 , 1989In their present codification, they trace to the Act of 1935. 1 "Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia. 2 "As in other parts of this report, the District of Columbia is treated hereafter as a State." 7 Appeal dismissed, 325 U.S. 450 , 65 S.Ct. 1384 , | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Berry v. Pike Cty. Bd. of Educ.
green
1 sentence1986Berry v. Pike County Board of Education, 448 So.2d 315 (Ala.1984); Barger v. Jefferson County Board of Education, 372 So.2d 307 (Ala.1979); Board of Education of Marshall County v. Baugh, supra. The lack of a requirement that the supervisor of transportation hold a teacher’s certificate should not deprive Dr. Oden of his tenure. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Barger v. JEFFERSON CTY. BD. OF ED.
green
1 sentence1986Berry v. Pike County Board of Education, 448 So.2d 315 (Ala.1984); Barger v. Jefferson County Board of Education, 372 So.2d 307 (Ala.1979); Board of Education of Marshall County v. Baugh, supra. The lack of a requirement that the supervisor of transportation hold a teacher’s certificate should not deprive Dr. Oden of his tenure. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Mathis v. State
green
2 sentences1968The facts on the main trial are fully - stated in tlie opinion, 280 Ala. 16 , 189 So.2d 564 , supra. The insistence of a lack of hearing on voir dire outside the presence of the jury is refuted by the record in this case. 1968The facts on the main trial are fully - stated in tlie opinion, 280 Ala. 16 , 189 So.2d 564 , supra. The insistence of a lack of hearing on voir dire outside the presence of the jury is refuted by the record in this case. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
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.