15 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 2005–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Carroll v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2013As our supreme court stated in Carroll v. Williams, 6 So.3d 463 (Ala.2008): “The law is well settled in Alabama that the defaulting party has the initial burden of demonstrating the existence of the three Kirtland factors. 2011More recently, our supreme court has again reiterated the requirement that "the defaulting party has the initial burden of demonstrating the existence of the three Kirtland factors." Carroll v. Williams, 6 So.3d 463, 467 (Ala.2008). | 3 | 4 |
Brantley v. Glovergreen2 sentences2018See also Brantley v. Glover , supra ; and D.B. v. D.G. , 141 So.3d 1066 , 1072 (Ala. Civ. 2018See also Brantley v. Glover , supra ; and D.B. v. D.G. , 141 So.3d 1066 , 1072 (Ala. Civ. | 2 | 2 |
R.D.J. v. A.P.J.green2 sentences2016“In White v. Westmoreland, 680 So.2d 848, 349 (Ala.Civ.App.1996), this court held that when the record does not demonstrate that the trial court considered each of the three Kirtland factors, the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded for such a determination.” R.D.J. v. A.P.J., 142 So.3d 662, 667 (Ala.Civ.App.2013). 2014“In White v. Westmoreland, 680 So.2d 348, 849 (Ala.Civ.App.1996), this court held that when the record does not demonstrate that the trial court considered each of the three Kirtland factors, the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded for such a determination.” R.D.J. v. A.P.J., 142 So.3d 662, 667 (Ala.Civ.App.2013). | 2 | 2 |
White v. Westmorelandgreen2 sentences2014“In White v. Westmoreland, 680 So.2d 348, 849 (Ala.Civ.App.1996), this court held that when the record does not demonstrate that the trial court considered each of the three Kirtland factors, the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded for such a determination.” R.D.J. v. A.P.J., 142 So.3d 662, 667 (Ala.Civ.App.2013). 2013In White v. Westmoreland, 680 So.2d 348, 349 (Ala.Civ.App.1996), this court held that when the record does not demonstrate that the trial court considered each of the three Kirtland factors, the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded for such a determination. | 2 | 2 |
Phillips v. Randolphgreen2 sentences2013Ex parte Family Dollar Stores of Alabama, Inc., 906 So.2d 892, 899-900 (Ala.2005); Phil lips v. Randolph, 828 So.2d 269, 278 (Ala.2002); and Kirtland, 524 So.2d at 605-08 .... 2008Ex parte Family Dollar Stores of Alabama, Inc., 906 So.2d 892, 899-900 (Ala.2005); Phillips v. Randolph, 828 So.2d 269, 278 (Ala.2002); and Kirtland, 524 So.2d at 605-08 . | 2 | 2 |
Ex Parte Family Dollar Stores of Alabama, Inc.green2 sentences2013Ex parte Family Dollar Stores of Alabama, Inc., 906 So.2d 892, 899-900 (Ala.2005); Phil lips v. Randolph, 828 So.2d 269, 278 (Ala.2002); and Kirtland, 524 So.2d at 605-08 .... 2008Ex parte Family Dollar Stores of Alabama, Inc., 906 So.2d 892, 899-900 (Ala.2005); Phillips v. Randolph, 828 So.2d 269, 278 (Ala.2002); and Kirtland, 524 So.2d at 605-08 . | 2 | 2 |
D.B. v. D.G.green2 sentences2018See also Brantley v. Glover , supra ; and D.B. v. D.G. , 141 So.3d 1066 , 1072 (Ala. Civ. 2015As such, the defaulting party has the initial burden of demonstrating the existence of the three Kirtland factors.” D.B. v. D.G., 141 So.3d 1066, 1070-71 (Ala. Civ.App.2013). | 1 | 4 |
Richardson v. Integrity Bible Church, Inc.green1 sentence2017We noted: “ ‘ “[0]ur mandate in this case ‘is not to be construed to mean that the trial court must set aside the default judgment, [but] only that the trial court must apply the Kirtland factors in deciding whether to set aside the default judgment.’ ” Richardson v. Integrity Bible Church, Inc., 897 So.2d 345, 349 (Ala. Civ. | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. Stategreen1 sentence2016“In White v. Westmoreland, 680 So.2d 848, 349 (Ala.Civ.App.1996), this court held that when the record does not demonstrate that the trial court considered each of the three Kirtland factors, the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded for such a determination.” R.D.J. v. A.P.J., 142 So.3d 662, 667 (Ala.Civ.App.2013). | 1 | 1 |
Triple D Trucking, Inc. v. Tri Sands, Inc.green1 sentence2013See also Triple D Trucking, Inc. v. Tri Sands, Inc., 840 So.2d 869, 872-73 (Ala.2002) (discussing the law and the burden of the movant with regard to each of the three Kirtland factors). | 1 | 1 |
Jenkins v. Mossgreen2 sentences2013See also Jenkins v. Moss, 66 So.3d 803, 807 (Ala.Civ.App.2011) (reversing and remanding for the trial court to enter an order applying Kirtland when it appeared the trial court had considered only one of the three Kirtland factors). 2013See also Jenkins v. Moss, 66 So.3d 803, 807 (Ala.Civ.App.2011) (reversing and remanding for the trial court to enter an order applying Kirtland when it appeared the trial court had considered only one of the three Kirtland factors). | 1 | 1 |
Sampson v. Canslergreen1 sentence2005In Sampson v. Cansler, 726 So.2d 632, 634-35 (Ala.1998), we summarized the three Kirtland factors as follows: "The first Kirtland factor is whether the defaulting party presented a meritorious defense. | 1 | 1 |
Hall v. Chrysler Corp.green1 sentence2005See Hall v. Chrysler Corp., 553 So.2d 98, 100 (Ala.1989)." *901 Application of the three Kirtland factors to the facts of this case results in the following conclusions. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hilyer v. Fortier
green
2 sentences2018As noted in Hilyer v. Fortier , supra, if a movant has argued and presented evidence on each of the three Kirtland factors, a denial by operation of law of a Rule 55(c) motion is generally reversible, because, in such a case, there is no indication that the trial court has properly considered the three Kirtland factors in allowing the motion to be denied. 2018As noted in Hilyer v. Fortier , supra, if a movant has argued and presented evidence on each of the three Kirtland factors, a denial by operation of law of a Rule 55(c) motion is generally reversible, because, in such a case, there is no indication that the trial court has properly considered the three Kirtland factors in allowing the motion to be denied. | 3 | 2017–2018 |
Von Alvensleben v. Dubuisson
neutral
2 sentences2018Von Alvensleben v. Dubuisson , 267 So. 3d 877 , ---- (Ala. Civ. 2018Von Alvensleben v. Dubuisson , 267 So. 3d 877 , ---- (Ala. Civ. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Kirtland v. Fort Morgan Auth. Sewer Serv., Inc.
green
2 sentences2013Ex parte Family Dollar Stores of Alabama, Inc., 906 So.2d 892, 899-900 (Ala.2005); Phil lips v. Randolph, 828 So.2d 269, 278 (Ala.2002); and Kirtland, 524 So.2d at 605-08 .... 2008Ex parte Family Dollar Stores of Alabama, Inc., 906 So.2d 892, 899-900 (Ala.2005); Phillips v. Randolph, 828 So.2d 269, 278 (Ala.2002); and Kirtland, 524 So.2d at 605-08 . | 2 | 2008–2013 |
Loupe v. Loupe
green
1 sentence2006As to the substance of her position, the wife alleged that the husband had "forcefully remov[ed] the child from the physical custody of the [wife]," that "[t]he well being of [the parties'] child is at issue," and that "the [wife] is the more fit and proper person to have custody of the minor child." In this regard, the present case is not unlike that of Loupe v. Loupe , 594 So.2d 155 (Ala.Civ.App. 1992), in which this court reversed the entry of a default judgment where the father filed an untimely "answer" along with his motion to set aside a default judgment. | 1 | 2006–2006 |