Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
15 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1970–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rodgers v. McFarlandgreen2 sentences1980The reason for this doctrine, as a Texas Court of Civil Appeals indicates in Rodgers v. McFarland , 402 S.W.2d 208 , 210 (1966) is: "`. . . 1980The reason for this doctrine, as a Texas Court of Civil Appeals indicates in Rodgers v. McFarland, 402 S.W.2d 208, 210 (1966) is: "`... | 2 | 2 |
Mason v. Newgreen2 sentences2012Mason v. New, 475 So.2d 854, 856 (Ala.1985). 1995See also Chiniche v. Smith , 374 So.2d 872 (Ala. 1979); Mason v. New , 475 So.2d 854 (Ala. 1985) (also holding that the lack of a driver's license, when combined with other evidence of a driver's lack of skill, is probative evidence of incompetence in a negligent entrustment claim.) The record here indicates that Thelton sold the automobile to Vernon. | 1 | 4 |
Bruck v. Jim Walter Corp.green2 sentences2012See Bruck v. Jim Walter Corp., 470 So.2d 1141, 1144 (Ala.1985) (indicating that a driver’s incompetency is an element of wanton entrustment). 1992Bruck v. Jim Walter Corp., 470 So.2d 1141 (Ala.1985). | 1 | 2 |
Spurling v. Fillingimgreen2 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 1977This 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 | 1 | 2 |
Goldome Credit Corp. v. Playergreen1 sentence2012As our supreme court recently stated: “ ‘This Court looks with some disfavor upon certifications under Rule 54(b). “ ‘ “It bears repeating, here, that ‘ “[ejertifications under Rule 54(b) should be entered only in exceptional cases and should not be entered routinely.” ’ State v. Lawhorn, 830 So.2d 720, 725 (Ala.2002) (quoting Baker v. Bennett, 644 So.2d 901, 903 (Ala.1994), citing in turn Branch v. SouthTrust Bank of Dothan, N.A., 514 So.2d 1373 (Ala.1987)). ‘ “ ‘Appellate review in a piecemeal fashion is not favored.’ ” ’ Goldome Credit Corp. [v. Player, 869 So.2d 1146, 1148 (Ala.Civ.App.200 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lawhorngreen1 sentence2012As our supreme court recently stated: “ ‘This Court looks with some disfavor upon certifications under Rule 54(b). “ ‘ “It bears repeating, here, that ‘ “[ejertifications under Rule 54(b) should be entered only in exceptional cases and should not be entered routinely.” ’ State v. Lawhorn, 830 So.2d 720, 725 (Ala.2002) (quoting Baker v. Bennett, 644 So.2d 901, 903 (Ala.1994), citing in turn Branch v. SouthTrust Bank of Dothan, N.A., 514 So.2d 1373 (Ala.1987)). ‘ “ ‘Appellate review in a piecemeal fashion is not favored.’ ” ’ Goldome Credit Corp. [v. Player, 869 So.2d 1146, 1148 (Ala.Civ.App.200 | 1 | 1 |
Baker v. Bennettgreen1 sentence2012As our supreme court recently stated: “ ‘This Court looks with some disfavor upon certifications under Rule 54(b). “ ‘ “It bears repeating, here, that ‘ “[ejertifications under Rule 54(b) should be entered only in exceptional cases and should not be entered routinely.” ’ State v. Lawhorn, 830 So.2d 720, 725 (Ala.2002) (quoting Baker v. Bennett, 644 So.2d 901, 903 (Ala.1994), citing in turn Branch v. SouthTrust Bank of Dothan, N.A., 514 So.2d 1373 (Ala.1987)). ‘ “ ‘Appellate review in a piecemeal fashion is not favored.’ ” ’ Goldome Credit Corp. [v. Player, 869 So.2d 1146, 1148 (Ala.Civ.App.200 | 1 | 1 |
HARPER SALES v. Brown, Stagner, Richardson, Inc.green1 sentence2012As our supreme court recently stated: “ ‘This Court looks with some disfavor upon certifications under Rule 54(b). “ ‘ “It bears repeating, here, that ‘ “[ejertifications under Rule 54(b) should be entered only in exceptional cases and should not be entered routinely.” ’ State v. Lawhorn, 830 So.2d 720, 725 (Ala.2002) (quoting Baker v. Bennett, 644 So.2d 901, 903 (Ala.1994), citing in turn Branch v. SouthTrust Bank of Dothan, N.A., 514 So.2d 1373 (Ala.1987)). ‘ “ ‘Appellate review in a piecemeal fashion is not favored.’ ” ’ Goldome Credit Corp. [v. Player, 869 So.2d 1146, 1148 (Ala.Civ.App.200 | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Whitaker Contracting Corp.green1 sentence2012As our supreme court recently stated: “ ‘This Court looks with some disfavor upon certifications under Rule 54(b). “ ‘ “It bears repeating, here, that ‘ “[ejertifications under Rule 54(b) should be entered only in exceptional cases and should not be entered routinely.” ’ State v. Lawhorn, 830 So.2d 720, 725 (Ala.2002) (quoting Baker v. Bennett, 644 So.2d 901, 903 (Ala.1994), citing in turn Branch v. SouthTrust Bank of Dothan, N.A., 514 So.2d 1373 (Ala.1987)). ‘ “ ‘Appellate review in a piecemeal fashion is not favored.’ ” ’ Goldome Credit Corp. [v. Player, 869 So.2d 1146, 1148 (Ala.Civ.App.200 | 1 | 1 |
Stanford v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.green2 sentences2001The Guest Statute applies "only to such person as may be responsible for the manner of [the automobile's] operation ; . . . it does not apply to the owner unless he is operating the [automobile] in person or it is under his immediate control or is operated by his servant or agent duly authorized by him." Penton v. Favors , 262 Ala. at 269 , 78 So.2d at 284 . "`"Negligent Entrustment is defined in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 390, as follows: "`"`One who supplies directly or through a third person a chattel for the use of another whom the supplier knows or has reason to know to be likely bec 2001The Guest Statute applies "only to such person as may be responsible for the manner of [the automobile's] operation; ... it does not apply to the owner unless he is operating the [automobile] in person or it is under his immediate control or is operated by his servant or agent duly authorized by him." Penton v. Favors, 262 Ala. at 269 , 78 So.2d at 284 . "`"Negligent Entrustment is defined in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 390, as follows: "`"`One who supplies directly or through a third person a chattel for the use of another whom the supplier knows or has reason to know to be likely because | 1 | 1 |
Chiniche v. Smithgreen2 sentences1995See also Chiniche v. Smith , 374 So.2d 872 (Ala. 1979); Mason v. New , 475 So.2d 854 (Ala. 1985) (also holding that the lack of a driver's license, when combined with other evidence of a driver's lack of skill, is probative evidence of incompetence in a negligent entrustment claim.) The record here indicates that Thelton sold the automobile to Vernon. 1995See also Chiniche v. Smith , 374 So.2d 872 (Ala. 1979); Mason v. New , 475 So.2d 854 (Ala. 1985) (also holding that the lack of a driver's license, when combined with other evidence of a driver's lack of skill, is probative evidence of incompetence in a negligent entrustment claim.) The record here indicates that Thelton sold the automobile to Vernon. | 1 | 1 |
Nichols v. Town of Mount Vernongreen1 sentence1989See Nichols v. Town of Mount Vernon , 504 So.2d 732 (Ala. 1987); Hollis v. Warehouse Groceries Management, Inc. , 481 So.2d 374 (Ala. 1985); Ex parte Riley , 464 So.2d 92 (Ala. 1985). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rush v. McDonnell
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 1977This 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 | 2 | 1970–1977 |
Land v. Niehaus
green
1 sentence2013The evidence was controverted and there was substantial evidence from which the jury could reasonably reach its conclusion, as it did.” 340 So.2d at 762 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Liao v. Harry's Bar
green
1 sentence2013Liao v. Harry’s Bar, 574 So.2d 775 (Ala.1990). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Branch v. Southtrust Bank of Dothan, N.A.
green
1 sentence2012As our supreme court recently stated: “ ‘This Court looks with some disfavor upon certifications under Rule 54(b). “ ‘ “It bears repeating, here, that ‘ “[ejertifications under Rule 54(b) should be entered only in exceptional cases and should not be entered routinely.” ’ State v. Lawhorn, 830 So.2d 720, 725 (Ala.2002) (quoting Baker v. Bennett, 644 So.2d 901, 903 (Ala.1994), citing in turn Branch v. SouthTrust Bank of Dothan, N.A., 514 So.2d 1373 (Ala.1987)). ‘ “ ‘Appellate review in a piecemeal fashion is not favored.’ ” ’ Goldome Credit Corp. [v. Player, 869 So.2d 1146, 1148 (Ala.Civ.App.200 | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Redmond v. Self
green
2 sentences2005The extent to which two instances of driving while intoxicated support a finding of incompetence for purposes of a negligent-entrustment claim was the question addressed in Redmond v. Self , 265 Ala. 155 , 90 So.2d 238 (1956). 2005The extent to which two instances of driving while intoxicated support a finding of incompetence for purposes of a negligent-entrustment claim was the question addressed in Redmond v. Self , 265 Ala. 155 , 90 So.2d 238 (1956). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Penton v. Favors
green
2 sentences2001Although this issue is not addressed by the parties, we note that in Penton v. Favors , 262 Ala. 262 , 78 So.2d 278 (1955), our supreme court determined that Alabama's Guest Statute does not bar a negligent-entrustment claim against the owner of an automobile. 2001Although this issue is not addressed by the parties, we note that in Penton v. Favors , 262 Ala. 262 , 78 So.2d 278 (1955), our supreme court determined that Alabama's Guest Statute does not bar a negligent-entrustment claim against the owner of an automobile. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Williams v. Hughes Moving & Storage Co.
green
1 sentence1996I concur in that portion of the opinion that affirms the judgment on the negligent entrustment claim, but I believe that Williams v. Hughes Moving & Storage Co., 578 So.2d 1281 (Ala.1991) (Maddox and Steagall, JJ., dissenting) (a case in which I did not participate), was wrongly decided. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Shipp v. Davis
green
2 sentences1995In Oates v. Chris Meyers Pontiac-GMC, Inc. , 583 So.2d 1335 (Ala. 1991), this Court quoted Shipp v. Davis , 25 Ala. App. 104 , 106 , 141 So. 366 , 367 (1932): " 'Whether by a gift or a sale when an automobile is placed in the possession and control of a person, sui juris , such transfer passes the title to the buyer or donee, and thereafter responsibility for its operation rests with such buyer or donee. 1995In Oates v. Chris Meyers Pontiac-GMC, Inc. , 583 So.2d 1335 (Ala. 1991), this Court quoted Shipp v. Davis , 25 Ala. App. 104 , 106 , 141 So. 366 , 367 (1932): " 'Whether by a gift or a sale when an automobile is placed in the possession and control of a person, sui juris , such transfer passes the title to the buyer or donee, and thereafter responsibility for its operation rests with such buyer or donee. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Oates v. Chris Meyers Pontiac-GMC, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence1995In Oates v. Chris Meyers Pontiac-GMC, Inc. , 583 So.2d 1335 (Ala. 1991), this Court quoted Shipp v. Davis , 25 Ala. App. 104 , 106 , 141 So. 366 , 367 (1932): " 'Whether by a gift or a sale when an automobile is placed in the possession and control of a person, sui juris , such transfer passes the title to the buyer or donee, and thereafter responsibility for its operation rests with such buyer or donee. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Ex Parte Riley
green
1 sentence1989See Nichols v. Town of Mount Vernon , 504 So.2d 732 (Ala. 1987); Hollis v. Warehouse Groceries Management, Inc. , 481 So.2d 374 (Ala. 1985); Ex parte Riley , 464 So.2d 92 (Ala. 1985). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Hollis v. Warehouse Groceries Management, Inc.
green
1 sentence1989See Nichols v. Town of Mount Vernon , 504 So.2d 732 (Ala. 1987); Hollis v. Warehouse Groceries Management, Inc. , 481 So.2d 374 (Ala. 1985); Ex parte Riley , 464 So.2d 92 (Ala. 1985). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Gardiner v. Solomon
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 1977This 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 | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Pollard v. Pollard
green
1 sentence1976To buttress this argument appellant cites Pollard , supra, for the proposition that as a matter of law, a parent has no control over property owned by a minor child. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Dean v. Johnston
green
2 sentences1970See Spurling v. Fillingim, 244 Ala. 172 , 12 So.2d 740 (1943) ; and Dean v. Johnston, 281 Ala. 602 , 206 So.2d 610 (1968). 1970See Spurling v. Fillingim, 244 Ala. 172 , 12 So.2d 740 (1943) ; and Dean v. Johnston, 281 Ala. 602 , 206 So.2d 610 (1968). | 1 | 1970–1970 |
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.