15 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1960–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Van Knight v. Smokergreen2 sentences2024The motion for summary judgment, with all supporting materials, including any briefs, shall be served at least ten (10) days before the time fixed for the hearing, except that a court may conduct a hearing on less than ten (10) days' notice with the consent of the parties concerned. …" (Emphasis added.) As we have explained, "[o]ne purpose of the procedural rights to notice and hearing under Rule 56(c) is to allow the nonmoving party the opportunity to discover and to present evidence opposing the motion for summary judgment." Van Knight v. Smoker, 778 So. 2d 801, 805 (Ala. 2000). 19 SC-2023-0 2010In Van Knight v. Smoker, 778 So.2d 801, 805 (Ala.2000), our supreme court explained that “[o]ne purpose of the procedural rights to notice and hearing under Rule 56(c) is to allow the nonmoving party the opportunity to discover and to present evidence opposing the motion for summary judgment.” Both our supreme court and this court have routinely reversed summary judgments entered in circumstances revealing a lack of the requisite 10-day notice to the responding party. | 2 | 3 |
Hillard v. Southtrust Bank of Alabama, N.A.green2 sentences2010As this Court stated in Hilliard v. SouthTrust Bank of Alabama, N.A., 581 So.2d 826, 828 (Ala.1991): “‘Once a party shows noncompliance with the notice requirement, the party then must show that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to comply with that requirement. 2000See Rule 56(c)(2), Ala.R.Civ.P.; Hilliard v. SouthTrust Bank of Ala. , 581 So.2d 826 , 828 (Ala. 1991) ("We have held, because of due process considerations, that [the provision of Rule 56(c)(2) stating that the summary-judgment motion `shall be served at least ten (10) days before the time fixed for the hearing'] is not to be applied literally, but that it will be applied to require a minimum of 10 days between the date the hearing is set and the date of the hearing."). | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Graveman v. Wind Drift Owners' Ass'n, Inc.
green
2 sentences2001Graveman v. Wind Drift Owners' Ass'n, Inc ., 607 So.2d 199 , 202 (Ala. 1992); Edwards v. City of Birmingham , 447 So.2d 704 (Ala. 1984). 1995"The requirements of Rule 56 apply to a converted Rule 12(b)(6) motion." Graveman v. Wind Drift Owners' Association, Inc. , 607 So.2d 199 , 202 (Ala. 1992). | 2 | 1995–2001 |
Hales v. First Nat. Bank of Mobile
green
2 sentences2001Subject to subparagraph (f) of this rule, any statement or affidavit in opposition shall be served at least two (2) days prior to the hearing." (Emphasis added.) In Hales v. First National Bank of Mobile , 380 So.2d 797 , 799-800 (Ala. 1980), this Court considered the conversion of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss to a Rule 56 motion for a summary judgment. 1995Rule 12(b), A.R.Civ.P., states in pertinent part: "If, on a motion asserting the defense numbered (6) to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56, and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56." Rule 56(c)(2), A.R.Civ.P. states, in pertinent part, that "[t]he motion . . . shall be served at least ten (10) | 2 | 1995–2001 |
Edwards v. City of Birmingham
green
1 sentence2001Graveman v. Wind Drift Owners' Ass'n, Inc ., 607 So.2d 199 , 202 (Ala. 1992); Edwards v. City of Birmingham , 447 So.2d 704 (Ala. 1984). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Kelly v. Harrison
green
1 sentence1993Before the August 1992 amendment, Rule 56(c) provided in part that "[t]he motion shall be served at least 10 days before the time fixed for the hearing," but "this Court [had] construed Rule 56(c) as providing for a ten-day notice of hearing on a motion for summary judgment." Kelly v. Harrison , 547 So.2d 443 , 445 (Ala. 1989) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Cofield v. City of Huntsville
green
1 sentence1993Cofield v. City of Huntsville, 527 So.2d 1259 (Ala.1988). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Golding v. Taylor
green
1 sentence1989App. 245 , 248 , 198 S.E.2d 478 , 480 (1973), the North Carolina Court of Appeals stated: "While we agree that ordinarily, in the absence of an extension of time, failure to object to interrogatories within the time fixed by the rule is a waiver of any objection, we hold that this principle must yield to the privilege against self-incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution." In the case before us, White raised the Fifth Amendment privilege as to the questions that were potentially incriminating, on January 4, 1989, when he filed answers to the Pattersons' inter | 1 | 1989–1989 |
United Virginia Bank v. Union Oil Co. of California
green
2 sentences1983United Virginia Bank/Citizens Marine v. Union Oil Company of California , 214 Va. 48 , 197 S.E.2d 174 (1973). 1983United Virginia Bank/Citizens Marine v. Union Oil Company of California , 214 Va. 48 , 197 S.E.2d 174 (1973). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Billingsley v. Gordon
neutral
1 sentence1978I Even though Rule 56 (c) states that the motion shall be served at least ten days before the time fixed for the hearing [Billingsley v. Gordon , Ala., 340 So.2d 743 (1976)] an objection for failure to comply with this provision cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Henley v. Boswell
green
2 sentences1978Henley v. Boswell , 55 Ala. App. 414 , 316 So.2d 342 (1975). 1978Henley v. Boswell , 55 Ala. App. 414 , 316 So.2d 342 (1975). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Chevrolet Motor Co. v. Caton
neutral
1 sentence1960This determination shall be filed in writing, with the clerk of said court, and judgment shall be entered thereon in the same manner as in causes tried in the said circuit court, and shall contain a statement of the law and facts and conclusions as determined by said judge.” This court in Bryant v. Central Foundry Co., 217 Ala. 332 , 116 So. 345 described the requirement of this statute as follows: “The statute contemplates, not a recital of the evidence, * * * but a determination by the trial judge of the facts established by the evidence, responsive to the issues presented, with the conclusi | 1 | 1960–1960 |
Bryant v. Central Foundry Co.
green
1 sentence1960This determination shall be filed in writing, with the clerk of said court, and judgment shall be entered thereon in the same manner as in causes tried in the said circuit court, and shall contain a statement of the law and facts and conclusions as determined by said judge.” This court in Bryant v. Central Foundry Co., 217 Ala. 332 , 116 So. 345 described the requirement of this statute as follows: “The statute contemplates, not a recital of the evidence, * * * but a determination by the trial judge of the facts established by the evidence, responsive to the issues presented, with the conclusi | 1 | 1960–1960 |
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.