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.
14 Alabama opinions name it 3 courts 1956–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sterling v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Brown, 588 So.2d at 557 ; see also People v. Johnson, 284 Cal.Rptr. 579 , 233 Cal.App.3d 425 (1991) (statements made by a husband to his wife as he was beating her were not privileged because they were an abuse of the relationship on which the privilege was predicated); State v. Bryant, 56 Ohio App.3d 20 , 564 N.E.2d 709 (1988) (husband’s threats and abusive behavior toward his wife were not confidential communications and thus were not privileged); Sterling v. State, 814 S.W.2d 261, 262 (Tex.App. 1991) (husband’s abusive treatment of his wife was not a confidential communication).” 887 So.2d 2004Brown , 588 So.2d at 557 ; see also People v. Johnson , 284 Cal.Rptr. 579 , 233 Cal.App.3d 425 (1991) (statements made by a husband to his wife as he was beating her were not privileged because they were an abuse of the relationship on which the privilege was predicated); State v. Bryant , 56 Ohio App.3d 20 , 564 N.E.2d 709 (1988) (husband's threats and abusive behavior toward his wife were not confidential communications and thus were not privileged); Sterling v. State , 814 S.W.2d 261 , 262 (Tex.App. 1991) (husband's abusive treatment of his wife was not a confidential communication). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2015Brown, 588 So.2d at 557 ; see also People v. Johnson, 284 Cal.Rptr. 579 , 233 Cal.App.3d 425 (1991) (statements made by a husband to his wife as he was beating her were not privileged because they were an abuse of the relationship on which the privilege was predicated); State v. Bryant, 56 Ohio App.3d 20 , 564 N.E.2d 709 (1988) (husband’s threats and abusive behavior toward his wife were not confidential communications and thus were not privileged); Sterling v. State, 814 S.W.2d 261, 262 (Tex.App. 1991) (husband’s abusive treatment of his wife was not a confidential communication).” 887 So.2d 2015Brown, 588 So.2d at 557 ; see also People v. Johnson, 284 Cal.Rptr. 579 , 233 Cal.App.3d 425 (1991) (statements made by a husband to his wife as he was beating her were not privileged because they were an abuse of the relationship on which the privilege was predicated); State v. Bryant, 56 Ohio App.3d 20 , 564 N.E.2d 709 (1988) (husband’s threats and abusive behavior toward his wife were not confidential communications and thus were not privileged); Sterling v. State, 814 S.W.2d 261, 262 (Tex.App. 1991) (husband’s abusive treatment of his wife was not a confidential communication).” 887 So.2d | 2 | 2 |
T. C. Theatre Corp. v. Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc.green2 sentences1981C. & Theatre Corporation v. Warner Brothers Pictures, Inc., 113 F.Supp. 265, 268-69 (S.D.N.Y. 1953): [T]he former client need show no more than that the matters embraced within the pending suit wherein his former attorney appears on behalf of his adversary are substantially related to the matters or cause of action wherein the attorney previously represented him, the former client. 1981C. & Theatre Corporation v. Warner Brothers Pictures, Inc., 113 F.Supp. 265, 268-69 (S.D.N.Y. 1953): [T]he former client need show no more than that the matters embraced within the pending suit wherein his former attorney appears on behalf of his adversary are substantially related to the matters or cause of action wherein the attorney previously represented him, the former client. | 2 | 2 |
BP Oil Co. v. Jefferson Countygreen2 sentences2017In City of Alabaster v. Shelby Land Partners, LLC , 148 So.3d 697 , 704-05 (Ala. 2014), our supreme court explained the rules to be applied in determining whether a zoning classification and its application are valid in a given case: "In zoning cases, we have noted that there are two applicable rules: the 'substantial relationship rule' and the 'fairly debatable rule.' We explained the applicability of these two rules in BP Oil Co. v. Jefferson County , 571 So.2d 1026 (Ala. 1990) : " ' "The substantial relationship rule is a substantive law, and may be simply stated as follows: In order for a 2014In zoning cases, we have noted that there are two applicable rules: the “substantial relationship rule” and the “fairly debatable rule.” We explained the applicability of these two rules in BP Oil Co. v. Jefferson County, 571 So.2d 1026 (Ala.1990): “ ‘The substantial relationship rule is a substantive law, and may be simply stated as follows: In order for a zoning ordinance or regulation to be valid, it must have some substantial relationship to the promotion of the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare. | 1 | 3 |
Byrd Companies, Inc. v. Jefferson Countygreen2 sentences2004In zoning cases, there are two applicable rules: the "substantial relationship rule" and the "fairly debatable rule." This Court explained the applicability of these two rules in BP Oil Co. v. Jefferson County, 571 So.2d 1026, 1028-29 (Ala.1990)(quoting Byrd Cos. v. Jefferson County, 445 So.2d 239, 247 (Ala.1983)): "`The substantial relationship rule is a substantive law, and may be simply stated as follows: In order for a zoning ordinance or regulation to be valid, it must have some substantial relationship to the promotion of the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare. 2004In zoning cases, there are two applicable rules: the "substantial relationship rule" and the "fairly debatable rule." This Court explained the applicability of these two rules in BP Oil Co. v. Jefferson County , 571 So.2d 1026 , 1028-29 (Ala. 1990) (quoting Byrd Cos. v. Jefferson County , 445 So.2d 239 , 247 (Ala. 1983)): "`The substantial relationship rule is a substantive law, and may be simply stated as follows: In order for a zoning ordinance or regulation to be valid, it must have some substantial relationship to the promotion of the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Brown v. State
green
2 sentences2015Brown, 588 So.2d at 557 ; see also People v. Johnson, 284 Cal.Rptr. 579 , 233 Cal.App.3d 425 (1991) (statements made by a husband to his wife as he was beating her were not privileged because they were an abuse of the relationship on which the privilege was predicated); State v. Bryant, 56 Ohio App.3d 20 , 564 N.E.2d 709 (1988) (husband’s threats and abusive behavior toward his wife were not confidential communications and thus were not privileged); Sterling v. State, 814 S.W.2d 261, 262 (Tex.App. 1991) (husband’s abusive treatment of his wife was not a confidential communication).” 887 So.2d 2004Brown , 588 So.2d at 557 ; see also People v. Johnson , 284 Cal.Rptr. 579 , 233 Cal.App.3d 425 (1991) (statements made by a husband to his wife as he was beating her were not privileged because they were an abuse of the relationship on which the privilege was predicated); State v. Bryant , 56 Ohio App.3d 20 , 564 N.E.2d 709 (1988) (husband's threats and abusive behavior toward his wife were not confidential communications and thus were not privileged); Sterling v. State , 814 S.W.2d 261 , 262 (Tex.App. 1991) (husband's abusive treatment of his wife was not a confidential communication). | 2 | 2004–2015 |
State v. Bryant
green
2 sentences2015Brown, 588 So.2d at 557 ; see also People v. Johnson, 284 Cal.Rptr. 579 , 233 Cal.App.3d 425 (1991) (statements made by a husband to his wife as he was beating her were not privileged because they were an abuse of the relationship on which the privilege was predicated); State v. Bryant, 56 Ohio App.3d 20 , 564 N.E.2d 709 (1988) (husband’s threats and abusive behavior toward his wife were not confidential communications and thus were not privileged); Sterling v. State, 814 S.W.2d 261, 262 (Tex.App. 1991) (husband’s abusive treatment of his wife was not a confidential communication).” 887 So.2d 2015Brown, 588 So.2d at 557 ; see also People v. Johnson, 284 Cal.Rptr. 579 , 233 Cal.App.3d 425 (1991) (statements made by a husband to his wife as he was beating her were not privileged because they were an abuse of the relationship on which the privilege was predicated); State v. Bryant, 56 Ohio App.3d 20 , 564 N.E.2d 709 (1988) (husband’s threats and abusive behavior toward his wife were not confidential communications and thus were not privileged); Sterling v. State, 814 S.W.2d 261, 262 (Tex.App. 1991) (husband’s abusive treatment of his wife was not a confidential communication).” 887 So.2d | 2 | 2004–2015 |
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 98,017 Carl R. Duncan, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.
green
2 sentences1990Co., our supreme court adopted the rationale of the Fifth Circuit in Duncan v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 646 F.2d 1020 (5th Cir.1981): “ ‘Only when the moving party delineates with specificity the subject matters, issues, and causes of action presented in former representation can the district court determine if the substantial relationship test has been met. 1990Merely pointing to a superficial resemblance between the present and prior representations will not substitute for the careful comparison demanded by our cases.’ ” 469 So.2d at 575-76 , quoting Duncan, 646 F.2d at 1029 . | 2 | 1985–1990 |
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,745 Dean Woods, and All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Covington County Bank, Edward Hoglund v. Covington County Bank
green
2 sentences1981This substantial relationship rule is followed in the majority of the jurisdictions and was followed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Woods v. Covington County Bank, 537 F.2d 804 (5th Cir. 1976). 1981This substantial relationship rule is followed in the majority of the jurisdictions and was followed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Woods v. Covington County *7 Bank, 537 F.2d 804 (5th Cir. 1976). | 2 | 1981–1981 |
City of Alabaster v. Shelby Land Partners, LLC
green
1 sentence2017In City of Alabaster v. Shelby Land Partners, LLC , 148 So.3d 697 , 704-05 (Ala. 2014), our supreme court explained the rules to be applied in determining whether a zoning classification and its application are valid in a given case: "In zoning cases, we have noted that there are two applicable rules: the 'substantial relationship rule' and the 'fairly debatable rule.' We explained the applicability of these two rules in BP Oil Co. v. Jefferson County , 571 So.2d 1026 (Ala. 1990) : " ' "The substantial relationship rule is a substantive law, and may be simply stated as follows: In order for a | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Rich v. Rich
green
1 sentence2015Brown, 588 So.2d at 557 ; see also People v. Johnson, 284 Cal.Rptr. 579 , 233 Cal.App.3d 425 (1991) (statements made by a husband to his wife as he was beating her were not privileged because they were an abuse of the relationship on which the privilege was predicated); State v. Bryant, 56 Ohio App.3d 20 , 564 N.E.2d 709 (1988) (husband’s threats and abusive behavior toward his wife were not confidential communications and thus were not privileged); Sterling v. State, 814 S.W.2d 261, 262 (Tex.App. 1991) (husband’s abusive treatment of his wife was not a confidential communication).” 887 So.2d | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Anderson v. State
neutral
2 sentences2014The evidence was also sufficient to allow the jury to determine that Hand suffered “serious physical injuries.” ■ In Anderson v. State, 686 So.2d 381 (Ala.1996), the Alabama Supreme Court held that “testimony indicating] that.the victim had-a deep puncture wound from a knife; trauma to the head, along with various bruises and scrapes; a fractured rib; and a burst eardrum” was sufficient to establish that the victim had suffered “serious physical injuries.” 2 686 So.2d at 385 . 2014The evidence was also sufficient to allow the jury to determine that Hand suffered “serious physical injuries.” ■ In Anderson v. State, 686 So.2d 381 (Ala.1996), the Alabama Supreme Court held that “testimony indicating] that.the victim had-a deep puncture wound from a knife; trauma to the head, along with various bruises and scrapes; a fractured rib; and a burst eardrum” was sufficient to establish that the victim had suffered “serious physical injuries.” 2 686 So.2d at 385 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Ex Parte Rush
neutral
1 sentence2005Ex parte Rush , 574 So.2d 808 , 810 (Ala.Civ.App. 1990). "`Only when the moving party delineates with specificity the subject matters, issues, and causes of action presented in former representation can the . . . court determine if the substantial relationship test has been met. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Ex Parte State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
green
1 sentence1990Merely pointing to a superficial resemblance between the present and prior representations will not substitute for the careful comparison demanded by our cases.’ ” 469 So.2d at 575-76 , quoting Duncan, 646 F.2d at 1029 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Lehr v. Robertson
green
2 sentences1985Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248 , 103 S.Ct. 2985 , 77 L.Ed.2d 614 (1983) (one claiming to be the natural father of a child placed for adoption had no standing to challenge the adoption because he had failed to establish a substantial relationship with the child in that he had never supported the child and had rarely seen her in the two years since her birth). 1985Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248 , 103 S.Ct. 2985 , 77 L.Ed.2d 614 (1983) (one claiming to be the natural father of a child placed for adoption had no standing to challenge the adoption because he had failed to establish a substantial relationship with the child in that he had never supported the child and had rarely seen her in the two years since her birth). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Ex Parte Taylor Coal Co., Inc.
green
1 sentence1985This Court in Ex parte Taylor Coal Co. emphasized that in adopting the substantial relationship test it was "adopting the majority view and that of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals." 401 So.2d at 7 . | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Craig v. Boren
green
2 sentences1980Craig v. Boren , 429 U.S. 190 , 97 S.Ct. 451 , 50 L.Ed.2d 397 (1976). 1980Craig v. Boren , 429 U.S. 190 , 97 S.Ct. 451 , 50 L.Ed.2d 397 (1976). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Swendick v. Swendick
green
2 sentences1956Swendick v. Swendick, 221 Ala. 337 , 128 So. 593 . 1956Swendick v. Swendick, 221 Ala. 337 , 128 So. 593 . | 1 | 1956–1956 |
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.