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.
13 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Baldwin Mutual Insurance Co. v. Edwardsgreen2 sentences2015Subsequently, the trial court conducted a class-certification hearing pursuant to § 6-5-641, after which it allowed the parties to file briefs further explaining their positions on the issue. 63 So.3d at 1269-70 . 2015In his brief, the plaintiff expanded the proposed class, broadening the definition that had previously been set forth in his complaint; Baldwin Mutual thereafter objected to the expanded definition; and the trial court ultimately certified the class, defining it in accordance with the expanded definition put forth by the plaintiff in his post-class-certification-hearing brief. 63 So.3d at 1270-71 . | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte First Nat. Bank of Jaspergreen1 sentence2012Regardless, however, we note that we have previously declined to hold "that a pre-certification evidentiary hearing is required in every case — or even in most cases.” Ex parte First Nat'l Bank of Jasper, 717 So.2d 342, 346 (Ala.1997). | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte AmSouth Bankgreen2 sentences2010This injury should be addressed not by abating [the later filed] State action, but by putting it on administrative hold until the United States District Court certifies, or refuses to certify, the class in the [federal] action, as to the breach-of-contract and fraud claims." 735 So.2d at 1154 (emphasis added). 2010This injury should be addressed not by abating [the later filed] State action, but by putting it on administrative hold until the United States District Court certifies, or refuses to certify, the class in the [federal] action, as to the breach-of-contract and fraud claims.” 735 So.2d at 1154 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2004Accord Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma v. United States, 199 F.R.D. 357 (E.D.Okla.2001). 2004Accord Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma v. United States , 199 F.R.D. 357 (E.D.Okla. 2001). | 1 | 1 |
Rishcoff v. Commodity Fluctuations Systems, Inc.green2 sentences2004Indeed, respectable authority holds that "an inquiry into a claimed affirmative defense impermissibly allows an issue going to the merits of the litigation to intrude upon the class certification analysis required by Rule 23." Cook v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 151 F.R.D. 378, 386 (D.Colo.1993), and Rishcoff v. Commodity Fluctuations Sys., Inc., 111 F.R.D. 381, 382 (E.D.Pa.1986). 2004Indeed, respectable authority holds that "an inquiry into a claimed affirmative defense impermissibly allows an issue going to the merits of the litigation to intrude upon the class certification analysis required by Rule 23." Cook v. Rockwell Int'l Corp. , 151 F.R.D. 378 , 386 (D.Colo. 1993), and Rishcoff v. Commodity Fluctuations Sys., Inc. , 111 F.R.D. 381 , 382 (E.D.Pa. 1986). | 1 | 1 |
Cook v. Rockwell International Corp.green2 sentences2004Indeed, respectable authority holds that "an inquiry into a claimed affirmative defense impermissibly allows an issue going to the merits of the litigation to intrude upon the class certification analysis required by Rule 23." Cook v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 151 F.R.D. 378, 386 (D.Colo.1993), and Rishcoff v. Commodity Fluctuations Sys., Inc., 111 F.R.D. 381, 382 (E.D.Pa.1986). 2004Indeed, respectable authority holds that "an inquiry into a claimed affirmative defense impermissibly allows an issue going to the merits of the litigation to intrude upon the class certification analysis required by Rule 23." Cook v. Rockwell Int'l Corp. , 151 F.R.D. 378 , 386 (D.Colo. 1993), and Rishcoff v. Commodity Fluctuations Sys., Inc. , 111 F.R.D. 381 , 382 (E.D.Pa. 1986). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Baldwin Mutual Insurance Co. v. McCain
green
2 sentences2018This Court reversed the trial court's certification order because "the class definition proposed by McCain in her brief submitted after the class-certification hearing was materially different from the class definition offered by McCain in her original complaint." 176 So.3d at 1199 . 2018This Court reversed the trial court's certification order because "the class definition proposed by McCain in her brief submitted after the class-certification hearing was materially different from the class definition offered by McCain in her original complaint." 176 So.3d at 1199 . | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Ex Parte Myer
green
2 sentences2001Therefore, the only injury AmSouth has incurred in regard to the State action (a showing of injury is required for the issuance of a writ of mandamus), see Ex parte Myer, [ 595 So.2d 890 (Ala.1992) ], is a requirement that AmSouth produce documents, prepare for depositions, and prepare for a class-certification hearing, while already doing these same things in regard to the action in the federal district court. 1999Therefore, the only injury AmSouth has incurred in regard to the State action (a showing of injury is required for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, see Ex parte Myer , supra), is a requirement that AmSouth produce documents, prepare for depositions, and prepare for a class-certification hearing, while already doing these same things in regard to the action in the federal district court. | 2 | 1999–2001 |
Funliner of Alabama, LLC v. Pickard
green
1 sentence2014Because the opponents of the preliminary injunction had no notice that they should oppose the injunction during the class-certification hearing, our supreme court stated that it “ha[d] no difficulty” determining that the trial court had exceeded its discretion in considering the preliminary injunction at the class-certification hearing without notice that it intended to do so, and it dissolved the preliminary injunction based on the lack of notice. 6 Id. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Ticor Title Insurance v. Brown
green
2 sentences2003Co. v. Brown, 511 U.S. 117 , 114 S.Ct. 1359 , 128 L.Ed.2d 33 (1994) (noting the existence of "at least a substantial possibility" that actions seeking monetary damages are certifiable only under Rule 23(b)(3)). 2003Co. v. Brown, 511 U.S. 117 , 114 S.Ct. 1359 , 128 L.Ed.2d 33 (1994) (noting the existence of "at least a substantial possibility" that actions seeking monetary damages are certifiable only under Rule 23(b)(3)). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Ex Parte Household Retail Services, Inc.
green
1 sentence2003Ex parte Household Retail [Serv.] Inc. , [ 744 So.2d at 878 ], citing Kirkpatrick v. J. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Cutler v. Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc.
green
1 sentence2003P. [6] Although the trial court's order specifically mentions only Rule 23(b)(1), we assume the trial court intended to certify the plaintiffs' claims pursuant to Rule 23(b)(1)(A); that is the only subsection we find applicable and that is the only subsection referred to or discussed at the class-certification hearing. [7] "Because the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure were patterned after the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, cases construing the federal rules are considered authoritative in construing the Alabama rules." Reynolds Metals Co. v. Hill, 825 So.2d 100 , 104 n. 1 (Ala. 2002), citin | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Reynolds Metals Company v. Hill
green
1 sentence2003P. [6] Although the trial court's order specifically mentions only Rule 23(b)(1), we assume the trial court intended to certify the plaintiffs' claims pursuant to Rule 23(b)(1)(A); that is the only subsection we find applicable and that is the only subsection referred to or discussed at the class-certification hearing. [7] "Because the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure were patterned after the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, cases construing the federal rules are considered authoritative in construing the Alabama rules." Reynolds Metals Co. v. Hill, 825 So.2d 100 , 104 n. 1 (Ala. 2002), citin | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Dianne Castano v. The American Tobacco Company
green
1 sentence1999Castano is particularly instructive because it directs the court to focus the class certification analysis on `how a trial on the merits would be conducted,' before certifying a putative class. [ Id. at 740 .] "A. Rule 23(a) "Rule 23(a) requires Plaintiff to come forward with sufficient evidence ... (1) [that] the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical, (2) [that] there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) [that] the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) [that] the representative pa | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Ex Parte Masonite Corp.
green
2 sentences1997Masonite , 681 So.2d at 1069 . 1997Masonite, 681 So.2d at 1069 . | 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.