104 Alabama opinions name it 3 courts 1914–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
City of Birmingham v. Carlegreen2 sentences1976In his opinion, Justice McClellan described this statute as establishing two classes of liability: “In the first class (a) are wrongs or injuries resulting from negligence of agents, etc., of the municipality, consistent with the doctrine of respondeat superior; and in the second class (b)' are wrongs or injuries for which the municipalities are only liable for culpable neglect to remedy a condition negligently created or made or allowed to exist by a person or corporation not related in service to the municipality — a stranger to the municipal service or function.” 191 Ala. at 542 , 68 So. at 1976In his opinion, Justice McClellan described this statute as establishing two classes of liability: “In the first class (a) are wrongs or injuries resulting from negligence of agents, etc., of the municipality, consistent with the doctrine of respondeat superior; and in the second class (b)' are wrongs or injuries for which the municipalities are only liable for culpable neglect to remedy a condition negligently created or made or allowed to exist by a person or corporation not related in service to the municipality — a stranger to the municipal service or function.” 191 Ala. at 542 , 68 So. at | 2 | 8 |
Wood v. Shell Oil Co.green2 sentences2003When a plaintiff is alleging liability based on the doctrine of respondeat superior, the test for determining whether an agency relationship exists is "whether the alleged principal reserved a right of control over the manner of the alleged agent's performance." Wood v. Shell Oil, 495 So.2d 1034, 1036 (Ala.1986). 1998Retailer understands Buccaneer’s intention to terminate this agreement upon faüure to meet Retaüer’s responsibilities under this agreement.” In Wood v. Shell Oil Co., 495 So.2d 1034 (Ala.1986), we stated: “The test to be applied in determining the existence of an agency relationship under the doctrine of respondeat superior is whether the aüeged principal reserved a right of control over the manner of the alleged agent’s performance. | 2 | 7 |
Motor Terminal & Transportation Co. v. Simmonsgreen2 sentences2007Utilizing the rule set out in Motor Terminal & Transportation Co. v. Simmons, 28 Ala.App. 190, 193 , 180 So. 597, 599 (1938), the Chandler court determined that the driver of the lead car in the funeral procession was not an employee, i.e., a servant, of the funeral home: "`The general rule is that to constitute the relationship between master and servant for the purpose of fixing liability on the former for the acts of the latter under the doctrine of respondeat superior, it is indispensable that the right to select the person claimed to be a servant should exist. 2007Utilizing the rule set out in Motor Terminal & Transportation Co. v. Simmons, 28 Ala.App. 190, 193 , 180 So. 597, 599 (1938), the Chandler court determined that the driver of the lead car in the funeral procession was not an employee, i.e., a servant, of the funeral home: "`The general rule is that to constitute the relationship between master and servant for the purpose of fixing liability on the former for the acts of the latter under the doctrine of respondeat superior, it is indispensable that the right to select the person claimed to be a servant should exist. | 2 | 3 |
UNIV. OF ALA. HEALTH SERVICES v. Bushgreen2 sentences2025Found., P.C. v. Bush, 638 So. 2d 794, 799 (Ala. 1994) ("Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, the master cannot be liable unless one of the master's servants has been found to be negligent."). 2006Found., P.C. , 638 So.2d at 799 ("Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, the master cannot be liable unless one of the master's servants has been found to be negligent."). | 2 | 2 |
Horizons 2000, Inc. v. Smithgreen2 sentences2011Specifically, the Court of Civil Appeals quotes Kingvision Pay-Per-View, Ltd. v. Ayers, 886 So.2d 45 (2003), for the principle that "`[t]o establish proper service on a corporation by service on an alleged agent not authorized by appointment of the corporation, a plaintiff must prove that the corporation exercised a "high degree of control" over the alleged agent. 886 So.2d at 51 (quoting Horizons 2000, [Inc. v. Smith, ] 620 So.2d [606,] 607 [(Ala. 1993)].)'" 70 So.3d at 1227 (quoting Kingvision, 886 So.2d at 51 ); see also Horizons 2000, Inc. v. Smith, 620 So.2d 606, 608 (Ala.1993) (noting th 2011Specifically, the Court of Civil Appeals quotes Kingvision Pay-Per-View, Ltd. v. Ayers, 886 So.2d 45 (2003), for the principle that “ ‘[t]o establish proper service on a corporation by service on an alleged agent not authorized by appointment of the corporation, a plaintiff must prove that the corporation exercised a “high degree of control” over the alleged agent. 886 So.2d at 51 (quoting Horizons 2000, [Inc. v. Smith,] 620 So.2d [606,] 607 [(Ala. 1993)]).’” 70 So.3d at 1227 (quoting Kingvision, 886 So.2d at 51 ); see also Horizons 2000, Inc. v. Smith, 620 So.2d 606, 608 (Ala.1993) (noting th | 2 | 2 |
Isbell v. City of Huntsvillegreen2 sentences2018In the second classification, the municipality may be liable for injuries resulting from its failure to remedy conditions created or allowed to exist on the streets, alleys, public ways, etc., by 'a person or corporation not related in service to the municipality.' Isbell v. City of Huntsville , 295 Ala. 380 , 330 So.2d 607 , 609 (1976) ; City of Birmingham v. Carle , 191 Ala. 539 , 542, 68 So. 22 , 23 (1915). 2018In the second classification, the municipality may be liable for injuries resulting from its failure to remedy conditions created or allowed to exist on the streets, alleys, public ways, etc., by 'a person or corporation not related in service to the municipality.' Isbell v. City of Huntsville , 295 Ala. 380 , 330 So.2d 607 , 609 (1976) ; City of Birmingham v. Carle , 191 Ala. 539 , 542, 68 So. 22 , 23 (1915). | 1 | 4 |
Williams v. Tennessee River Pulp & Paper Co.green2 sentences2000In other words, the defendant must have reserved the right to direct *505 not only what shall be done, but also how it shall be done." Lankford v. Gulf Lumber Co., 597 So.2d 1340, 1343 (Ala.1992) (citations omitted); see also Parr v. Champion Int'l Corp., 667 So.2d 36, 38 (Ala.1995); Wood v. Shell Oil Co., 495 So.2d 1034 (Ala.1986); Williams v. Tennessee River Pulp & Paper Co., 442 So.2d 20 (Ala.1983). 1998Williams v. Tennessee River Pulp & Paper Co., 442 So.2d 20 (Ala.1983). | 1 | 3 |
Larry Terry Contractors, Inc. v. Boglegreen2 sentences2025See Larry Terry Contractors, Inc. v. Bogle, 404 So. 2d 613, 614 (Ala. 1981) (" '[W]hen [a] principal and his agent are sued in [a] joint action in tort for misfeasance or malfeasance of the servant, and his liability for the conduct of said servant is under the rule of respondeat superior, a verdict in favor of the 27 SC-2025-0368 servant entitles the master to have the verdict against him set aside.' " (quoting Louisville & Nashville R.R. v. Maddox, 236 Ala. 594, 600 , 183 So. 849, 853 (1938)) (emphasis added)). 5 Additionally, as explained in the main opinion, our caselaw recognizes that, wh 1994Gore v. City of Hoover , 559 So.2d 163 , 165 (Ala. 1990) (where the basis of liability is respondeat superior , "if the agent is not liable, the principal cannot be liable, either") (applying the principle stated in United Steelworkers of America v. O'Neal , 437 So.2d 101 (Ala. 1983), and Larry Terry Contractors, Inc. v. Bogle , 404 So.2d 613 (Ala. 1981)). | 1 | 2 |
Union Oil Company of California v. Cranegreen2 sentences2017As indicated above, this Court has held that “ ‘there must be a reliance on the part of the injured person before liability can be engrafted through the doctrine of respondeat superior, by estoppel, on the master.’ ” Brown, 899 So.2d at 237 (quoting Union Oil Co. of California v. Crane, 288 Ala. 173, 179 , 258 So.2d 882, 887 (1972) (emphasis added)). “““Estoppel,’ by holding out another as the agent of the asserted principal, ‘is always a matter personal to the individual asserting it and he must therefore show that he was misled by the appearances relied upon. 2017As indicated above, this Court has held that “ ‘there must be a reliance on the part of the injured person before liability can be engrafted through the doctrine of respondeat superior, by estoppel, on the master.’ ” Brown, 899 So.2d at 237 (quoting Union Oil Co. of California v. Crane, 288 Ala. 173, 179 , 258 So.2d 882, 887 (1972) (emphasis added)). “““Estoppel,’ by holding out another as the agent of the asserted principal, ‘is always a matter personal to the individual asserting it and he must therefore show that he was misled by the appearances relied upon. | 1 | 2 |
Roden v. Wrightgreen2 sentences2000See Roden v. Wright, 646 So.2d 605, 611 (Ala.1994) (holding that where the theory of liability is the doctrine of respondeat superior, if the agent is not liable then the principal cannot be liable). 2000Significantly, the Alabama Supreme Court also stated that if the agent was entitled to discretionary function immunity in his individual capacity, `the other Marshall County defendants, whose liability is based on the doctrine of respondeat superior, are similarly entitled to immunity.' Id. at 611 . | 1 | 2 |
United Steelworkers of America v. O'NEALgreen2 sentences1997See United Steelworkers of America v. O'Neal , 437 So.2d 101 (Ala. 1983) (holding that the principal cannot be held liable if the agent is not liable). 1997See United Steelworkers of America v. O'Neal, 437 So.2d 101 (Ala.1983) (holding that the principal cannot be held liable if the agent is not liable). | 1 | 2 |
City of Birmingham v. Corrgreen2 sentences1976In City of Birmingham v. Corr, 229 Ala. 321, 323 , 157 So. 56, 57 (1934) the court stated: “These statutory provisions are limited to cases where the injury results from the initial wrongful act of some third person for whose acts the city is not responsible under the doctrine of respondeat superior, and the city’s liability arises from negligent failure to remedy the conditions created by such third person.” See City of Anniston v. Hillman, 220 Ala. 505 , 126 So. 169 (1930); City of Birmingham v. Norwood, 220 Ala. 497 , 126 So. 619 (1930); City of Decatur v. Gilliam, 222 Ala. 377 , 133 So. 25 1976In City of Birmingham v. Corr, 229 Ala. 321, 323 , 157 So. 56, 57 (1934) the court stated: “These statutory provisions are limited to cases where the injury results from the initial wrongful act of some third person for whose acts the city is not responsible under the doctrine of respondeat superior, and the city’s liability arises from negligent failure to remedy the conditions created by such third person.” See City of Anniston v. Hillman, 220 Ala. 505 , 126 So. 169 (1930); City of Birmingham v. Norwood, 220 Ala. 497 , 126 So. 619 (1930); City of Decatur v. Gilliam, 222 Ala. 377 , 133 So. 25 | 1 | 2 |
| Alfa Life Ins. Corp. v. Jacksongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Louisville N. R. Co. v. Maddoxgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Cameron v. Oslergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Davisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Latham v. Reddinggreen | 1 | 1 |
| Glass v. Birmingham Southern RR Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Buist v. Time Domain Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| Jones Food Co., Inc. v. Shipmangreen | 1 | 1 |
| North Alabama Electric Cooperative v. New Hope Telephone Cooperativegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Martin v. Goodies Distributiongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hendrix v. Frisco Builders, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Davenport-Harris Funeral Home, Inc. v. Chandlergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ware v. Timmonsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| American Tennis Courts, Inc. v. Hintongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Birmingham Post Co. v. Sturgeongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Moore-Handley Hardware Co. v. Williamsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Duncan v. Rudulphgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Alabama Power Co. v. Keygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Weaver v. Hollisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Parr v. Champion Intern. Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| Lankford v. Gulf Lumber Co., Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Ex Parte Henrygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Thompson v. Champion International Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| Scott v. City of Mountain Brookgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Delchamps, Inc. v. Morgangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Aggregate Limestone Co. v. Robison
green
2 sentences1996Furthermore, it is well settled law that when an agent commits an "intentional, wanton, or negligent act while in the line and scope of his employment, liability for such act [will] be imputed to the principal, regardless of the actual participation of the principal in the intentional, wanton or negligent act or omission under the doctrine of respondeat superior." Aggregate Limestone Co. v. Robison , 276 Ala. 338 , 342 , 161 So.2d 820 , 824 (1964). 1996Furthermore, it is well settled law that when an agent commits an "intentional, wanton, or negligent act while in the line and scope of his employment, liability for such act [will] be imputed to the principal, regardless of the actual participation of the principal in the intentional, wanton or negligent act or omission under the doctrine of respondeat superior." Aggregate Limestone Co. v. Robison , 276 Ala. 338 , 342 , 161 So.2d 820 , 824 (1964). | 4 | 1972–1996 |
Randman v. Mitchell
green
2 sentences1949"The doctrine of respondeat superior applies only when the relation of master and servant 'is shown to exist between the wrongdoer and the person sought to be charged for the result of some *Page 428 wrong or neglect at the time and in respect to the very transaction out of which the injury arose. ' " (Emphasis ours.) Powers v. Williamson, 189 Ala. 600 , 66 So. 585 , 587 . 1938Plaintiff seeks to hold defendant liable upon the doctrine of respondeat superior, which “applies only when the relation of master and servant ‘is shown to exist between the wrongdoer and the person sought to be charged for the result of some wrong or neglect at the time and in respect to the very transaction out of which the injury arose.’ ” Powers v. Williamson, 189 Ala. 600 , 66 So. 585, 587 ; 39 Corpus Juris 1268. | 4 | 1930–1951 |
Powers v. Williamson
green
2 sentences1949"The doctrine of respondeat superior applies only when the relation of master and servant 'is shown to exist between the wrongdoer and the person sought to be charged for the result of some *Page 428 wrong or neglect at the time and in respect to the very transaction out of which the injury arose. ' " (Emphasis ours.) Powers v. Williamson, 189 Ala. 600 , 66 So. 585 , 587 . 1938Plaintiff seeks to hold defendant liable upon the doctrine of respondeat superior, which “applies only when the relation of master and servant ‘is shown to exist between the wrongdoer and the person sought to be charged for the result of some wrong or neglect at the time and in respect to the very transaction out of which the injury arose.’ ” Powers v. Williamson, 189 Ala. 600 , 66 So. 585, 587 ; 39 Corpus Juris 1268. | 4 | 1930–1951 |
Washington Nat. Ins. Co. v. Strickland
green
2 sentences1993I had this problem when I authored Washington National Insurance Co. v. Strickland, 491 So.2d 872 (Ala.1985). 1993Washington *Page 560 National Insurance Co. v. Strickland , supra. | 3 | 1991–1993 |
Emison v. Wylam Ice Cream Co.
green
2 sentences1956“Where there is neither express nor implied authority given a servant to employ another to perform or to assist him in the performance of his work, or a subsequent ratification by his employer of such employment, the relation of master and servant between the employer and one so employed by his servant does not exist and he is not liable for the negligent acts of the latter under the doctrine of respondeat superior.” 57 C.J.S., Master and Servant, § 564b; Emison v. Wylam Ice Cream Co., 215 Ala. 504 , 111 So. 216 . 1956“Where there is neither express nor implied authority given a servant to employ another to perform or to assist him in the performance of his work, or a subsequent ratification by his employer of such employment, the relation of master and servant between the employer and one so employed by his servant does not exist and he is not liable for the negligent acts of the latter under the doctrine of respondeat superior.” 57 C.J.S., Master and Servant, § 564b; Emison v. Wylam Ice Cream Co., 215 Ala. 504 , 111 So. 216 . | 3 | 1938–1956 |
Ex Parte Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft
green
2 sentences2011Kingvision and Horizons 2000 both relied upon Ex parte Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft, 443 So.2d 880 (Ala.1983). 2011Kingvision and Horizons 2000 both relied upon Ex parte Volkswagenwerlc Alc-tiengesellschaft, 443 So.2d 880 (AIa.1983). | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Kingvision Pay-Per-View, Ltd. v. Ayers
green
2 sentences2011Specifically, the Court of Civil Appeals quotes Kingvision Pay-Per-View, Ltd. v. Ayers, 886 So.2d 45 (2003), for the principle that "`[t]o establish proper service on a corporation by service on an alleged agent not authorized by appointment of the corporation, a plaintiff must prove that the corporation exercised a "high degree of control" over the alleged agent. 886 So.2d at 51 (quoting Horizons 2000, [Inc. v. Smith, ] 620 So.2d [606,] 607 [(Ala. 1993)].)'" 70 So.3d at 1227 (quoting Kingvision, 886 So.2d at 51 ); see also Horizons 2000, Inc. v. Smith, 620 So.2d 606, 608 (Ala.1993) (noting th 2011Specifically, the Court of Civil Appeals quotes Kingvision Pay-Per-View, Ltd. v. Ayers, 886 So.2d 45 (2003), for the principle that "`[t]o establish proper service on a corporation by service on an alleged agent not authorized by appointment of the corporation, a plaintiff must prove that the corporation exercised a "high degree of control" over the alleged agent. 886 So.2d at 51 (quoting Horizons 2000, [Inc. v. Smith, ] 620 So.2d [606,] 607 [(Ala. 1993)].)'" 70 So.3d at 1227 (quoting Kingvision, 886 So.2d at 51 ); see also Horizons 2000, Inc. v. Smith, 620 So.2d 606, 608 (Ala.1993) (noting th | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Naber v. McCrory & Sumwalt Const. Co.
neutral
2 sentences2001Naber v. McCrory Sumwalt Construction Company , 393 So.2d 973 (Ala. 1981). 1981Naber v. McCrory Sumwalt Construction Company , 393 So.2d 973 (Ala. 1981). | 2 | 1981–2001 |
Otwell v. Bryant
green
2 sentences1994Otwell v. Bryant, 497 So.2d 111 (Ala.1986). 1994Otwell v. Bryant, 497 So.2d 111 (Ala.1986). | 2 | 1994–1994 |
Leda Mae Symons v. Mueller Company, and Third-Party v. Liberal Gas Company, Third-Party
green
2 sentences1985Symons v. Mueller Company , 526 F.2d 13 (10th Cir. 1975); 41 Am.Jur.2d, Indemnity § 21; cf. American Southern Insurance Co. v. Dime Taxi Service, Inc. , 275 Ala. 51 , 151 So.2d 783 , on contribution under the doctrine of respondeat superior." This Court opined: "In the case before us, Sherman, charged with active negligence by negligently designing the machine causing Norris' injury, is attempting to implead Gadsden, Norris' employer. 1976Symons v. Mueller Company , 526 F.2d 13 (10th Cir. 1975); 41 Am.Jur.2d, Indemnity § 21; cf. American Southern Insurance Co. v. Dime Taxi Service, Inc. , 275 Ala. 51 , 151 So.2d 783 , on contribution under the doctrine of respondeat superior. | 2 | 1976–1985 |
American Southern Insurance Co. v. Dime Taxi Svc., Inc.
green
2 sentences1985Symons v. Mueller Company , 526 F.2d 13 (10th Cir. 1975); 41 Am.Jur.2d, Indemnity § 21; cf. American Southern Insurance Co. v. Dime Taxi Service, Inc. , 275 Ala. 51 , 151 So.2d 783 , on contribution under the doctrine of respondeat superior." This Court opined: "In the case before us, Sherman, charged with active negligence by negligently designing the machine causing Norris' injury, is attempting to implead Gadsden, Norris' employer. 1985Symons v. Mueller Company , 526 F.2d 13 (10th Cir. 1975); 41 Am.Jur.2d, Indemnity § 21; cf. American Southern Insurance Co. v. Dime Taxi Service, Inc. , 275 Ala. 51 , 151 So.2d 783 , on contribution under the doctrine of respondeat superior." This Court opined: "In the case before us, Sherman, charged with active negligence by negligently designing the machine causing Norris' injury, is attempting to implead Gadsden, Norris' employer. | 2 | 1976–1985 |
Rush v. McDonnell
green
2 sentences1985The two phases of liability are separate and distinct, and in the latter case the liability is not based upon the doctrine of respondeat superior." 214 Ala. at 51 -52 , 106 So. at 178 . 1985The two phases of liability are separate and distinct, and in the latter case the liability is not based upon the doctrine of respondeat superior." 214 Ala. at 51 -52 , 106 So. at 178 . | 2 | 1977–1985 |
Mobile County v. White
green
2 sentences1977This Court, however, has defined the doctrine of negligent entrustment in Gardiner v. Solomon, 200 Ala. 115 , 75 So. 621 (1917), where Chief Justice Anderson said: "While automobiles are not inherently regarded as dangerous instrumentalities, and the owner thereof is not responsible for the negligent use of same, except upon the theory of the doctrine of respondeat superior, yet there is an exception if he intrusts it to one, though not an agent or servant, who is so incompetent as to the handling of same as to convert it into a dangerous instrumentality, and the incompetency is known to the o 1977The two phases of liability are separate and distinct, and in the latter case the liability is not based upon the doctrine of respondeat superior." Perhaps the doctrine of negligent entrustment is more clearly stated in Gardiner v. Solomon, 200 Ala. 115 , 75 So. 621 (1917), where Chief Justice Anderson said, "While automobiles are not inherently regarded as dangerous instrumentalities, and the owner thereof is not responsible for the negligent use of same, except upon the theory of the doctrine of respondeat superior, yet there is an exception if he intrusts it to one, though not an agent *500 | 2 | 1954–1977 |
Hyatt v. Ogletree
green
2 sentences1977This Court, however, has defined the doctrine of negligent entrustment in Gardiner v. Solomon, 200 Ala. 115 , 75 So. 621 (1917), where Chief Justice Anderson said: "While automobiles are not inherently regarded as dangerous instrumentalities, and the owner thereof is not responsible for the negligent use of same, except upon the theory of the doctrine of respondeat superior, yet there is an exception if he intrusts it to one, though not an agent or servant, who is so incompetent as to the handling of same as to convert it into a dangerous instrumentality, and the incompetency is known to the o 1954Parker v. Wilson, 179 Ala. 361 , 60 So. 150 , 43 L.R.A.,N.S., 87; Daily v. Maxwell, 152 Mo.App. 415 , 133 S.W. 351 ; Lynde. v. Browning, 2 Tenn. C.C.A. [Higgens] 262; Allen v. Bland (Tex.Civ.App.) 168 S.W. 35 .” For later cases approving this rule, see Salvation Army v. Security Roofing Co., 255 Ala. 349, 352 , 51 So.2d 513 ; Spurling v. Fillingim, 244 Ala. 172, 175 , 12 So.2d 740 . . | 2 | 1954–1977 |
Spurling v. Fillingim
green
2 sentences1977This Court, however, has defined the doctrine of negligent entrustment in Gardiner v. Solomon, 200 Ala. 115 , 75 So. 621 (1917), where Chief Justice Anderson said: "While automobiles are not inherently regarded as dangerous instrumentalities, and the owner thereof is not responsible for the negligent use of same, except upon the theory of the doctrine of respondeat superior, yet there is an exception if he intrusts it to one, though not an agent or servant, who is so incompetent as to the handling of same as to convert it into a dangerous instrumentality, and the incompetency is known to the o 1954Parker v. Wilson, 179 Ala. 361 , 60 So. 150 , 43 L.R.A.,N.S., 87; Daily v. Maxwell, 152 Mo.App. 415 , 133 S.W. 351 ; Lynde. v. Browning, 2 Tenn. C.C.A. [Higgens] 262; Allen v. Bland (Tex.Civ.App.) 168 S.W. 35 .” For later cases approving this rule, see Salvation Army v. Security Roofing Co., 255 Ala. 349, 352 , 51 So.2d 513 ; Spurling v. Fillingim, 244 Ala. 172, 175 , 12 So.2d 740 . . | 2 | 1954–1977 |
City of Birmingham v. Norwood
green
2 sentences1976In City of Birmingham v. Corr, 229 Ala. 321, 323 , 157 So. 56, 57 (1934) the court stated: “These statutory provisions are limited to cases where the injury results from the initial wrongful act of some third person for whose acts the city is not responsible under the doctrine of respondeat superior, and the city’s liability arises from negligent failure to remedy the conditions created by such third person.” See City of Anniston v. Hillman, 220 Ala. 505 , 126 So. 169 (1930); City of Birmingham v. Norwood, 220 Ala. 497 , 126 So. 619 (1930); City of Decatur v. Gilliam, 222 Ala. 377 , 133 So. 25 1976In City of Birmingham v. Corr, 229 Ala. 321, 323 , 157 So. 56, 57 (1934) the court stated: “These statutory provisions are limited to cases where the injury results from the initial wrongful act of some third person for whose acts the city is not responsible under the doctrine of respondeat superior, and the city’s liability arises from negligent failure to remedy the conditions created by such third person.” See City of Anniston v. Hillman, 220 Ala. 505 , 126 So. 169 (1930); City of Birmingham v. Norwood, 220 Ala. 497 , 126 So. 619 (1930); City of Decatur v. Gilliam, 222 Ala. 377 , 133 So. 25 | 2 | 1957–1976 |
City of Anniston v. Hillman
green
2 sentences1976In City of Birmingham v. Corr, 229 Ala. 321, 323 , 157 So. 56, 57 (1934) the court stated: "These statutory provisions are limited to cases where the injury results from the initial wrongful act of some third person for whose acts the city is not responsible under the doctrine of respondeat superior, and the city's liability arises from negligent failure to remedy the conditions created by such third person." See City of Anniston v. Hillman, 220 Ala. 505 , 126 So. 169 (1930); City of Birmingham v. Norwood, 220 Ala. 497 , 126 So. 619 (1930); City of Decatur v. Gilliam, 222 Ala. 377 , 133 So. 25 1976In City of Birmingham v. Corr, 229 Ala. 321, 323 , 157 So. 56, 57 (1934) the court stated: “These statutory provisions are limited to cases where the injury results from the initial wrongful act of some third person for whose acts the city is not responsible under the doctrine of respondeat superior, and the city’s liability arises from negligent failure to remedy the conditions created by such third person.” See City of Anniston v. Hillman, 220 Ala. 505 , 126 So. 169 (1930); City of Birmingham v. Norwood, 220 Ala. 497 , 126 So. 619 (1930); City of Decatur v. Gilliam, 222 Ala. 377 , 133 So. 25 | 2 | 1957–1976 |
City of Decatur v. Gilliam
green
2 sentences1976In City of Birmingham v. Corr, 229 Ala. 321, 323 , 157 So. 56, 57 (1934) the court stated: “These statutory provisions are limited to cases where the injury results from the initial wrongful act of some third person for whose acts the city is not responsible under the doctrine of respondeat superior, and the city’s liability arises from negligent failure to remedy the conditions created by such third person.” See City of Anniston v. Hillman, 220 Ala. 505 , 126 So. 169 (1930); City of Birmingham v. Norwood, 220 Ala. 497 , 126 So. 619 (1930); City of Decatur v. Gilliam, 222 Ala. 377 , 133 So. 25 1976In City of Birmingham v. Corr, 229 Ala. 321, 323 , 157 So. 56, 57 (1934) the court stated: “These statutory provisions are limited to cases where the injury results from the initial wrongful act of some third person for whose acts the city is not responsible under the doctrine of respondeat superior, and the city’s liability arises from negligent failure to remedy the conditions created by such third person.” See City of Anniston v. Hillman, 220 Ala. 505 , 126 So. 169 (1930); City of Birmingham v. Norwood, 220 Ala. 497 , 126 So. 619 (1930); City of Decatur v. Gilliam, 222 Ala. 377 , 133 So. 25 | 2 | 1957–1976 |
| Parker v. Wilson green | 2 | 1917–1954 |
| Barlow v. Liberty Nat. Life Ins. Co. green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Hollis v. City of Brighton green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Newsome v. Mead Corp. green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Brown Ex Rel. Brown v. St. Vincent's Hosp. green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Benson v. City of Birmingham green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| LVNV FUNDING, LLC v. Boyles green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Cofield v. Randolph County Commission green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Daugherty v. M-Earth of Alabama, Inc. green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Big B, Inc. v. Cottingham green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Salter v. A. Fraser Pattillo, Jr., Inc. green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| USA Petroleum Corp. v. Hines green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Philadelphia & Reading Railroad v. Derby green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Meyer v. Holley green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Crete Carrier Corporation v. Adair green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Ellison v. Town of Brookside green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Glennon v. Touart green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Birmingham News Co. v. Birmingham Printing Co. green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Smith v. Henson green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Jessup v. Shaddix green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Hudson v. Muller green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Mardis v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co. green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.