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 3 courts 1930–2010 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wilkinson v. Henrygreen2 sentences2010This is a universal principle, as old as the law itself; hence the question of jurisdiction is a question of primary importance in every case, and, if there is an absence of jurisdiction over the subject-matter, this ends the inquiry; it cannot be waived or supplied by consent.’ ” 874 So.2d at 502 -03 (quoting Wilkinson v. Henry, 221 Ala. 254, 256 , 128 So. 362, 364 (1930) (emphasis added in Reynolds)). 2010This is a universal principle, as old as the law itself; hence the question of jurisdiction is a question of primary importance in every case, and, if there is an absence of jurisdiction over the subject-matter, this ends the inquiry; it cannot be waived or supplied by consent.’ ” 874 So.2d at 502 -03 (quoting Wilkinson v. Henry, 221 Ala. 254, 256 , 128 So. 362, 364 (1930) (emphasis added in Reynolds)). | 5 | 9 |
Ex Parte Smithgreen2 sentences2009Reynolds v. Colonial Bank, 874 So.2d 497, 503 (Ala.2003) (“‘[I]f there is an absence of jurisdiction over the subject-matter, this ends the inquiry; it cannot be waived or supplied by consent.” ’ (quoting Wilkinson v. Henry, 221 Ala. 254, 256 , 128 So. 362, 364 (1930) (emphasis added))); Ex parte Smith, 438 So.2d 766, 768 (Ala.1983) (‘Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may not be *226 waived by the parties and it is the duty of an appellate court to consider lack of subject matter jurisdiction ex mero motu.’ (citing City of Huntsville v. Miller, 271 Ala. 687, 688 , 127 So.2d 606, 608 (1958))) 2009Reynolds v. Colonial Bank, 874 So.2d 497, 508 (Ala.2003) (“ ‘[I]f there is an absence of jurisdiction over the subject-matter, this ends the inquiry; it cannot be waived or supplied by consent.’ ” (quoting Wilkinson v. Henry, 221 Ala. 254, 256 , 128 So. 362, 364 (1930) (emphasis added))); Ex parte Smith, 438 So.2d 766, 768 (Ala.1983) (“Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may not be waived by the parties and it is the duty of an appellate court to consider lack of subject matter jurisdiction ex mero motu.” (citing City of Huntsville v. Miller, 271 Ala. 687, 688 , 127 So.2d 606, 608 (1958))); Pa | 3 | 3 |
Reynolds v. Colonial Bankgreen2 sentences2010This is a universal principle, as old as the law itself; hence the question of jurisdiction is a question of primary importance in every case, and, if there is an absence of jurisdiction over the subject-matter, this ends the inquiry; it cannot be waived or supplied by consent.’ ” 874 So.2d at 502 -03 (quoting Wilkinson v. Henry, 221 Ala. 254, 256 , 128 So. 362, 364 (1930) (emphasis added in Reynolds)). 2009Reynolds v. Colonial Bank, 874 So.2d 497, 503 (Ala.2003) (“‘[I]f there is an absence of jurisdiction over the subject-matter, this ends the inquiry; it cannot be waived or supplied by consent.” ’ (quoting Wilkinson v. Henry, 221 Ala. 254, 256 , 128 So. 362, 364 (1930) (emphasis added))); Ex parte Smith, 438 So.2d 766, 768 (Ala.1983) (‘Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may not be *226 waived by the parties and it is the duty of an appellate court to consider lack of subject matter jurisdiction ex mero motu.’ (citing City of Huntsville v. Miller, 271 Ala. 687, 688 , 127 So.2d 606, 608 (1958))) | 2 | 3 |
City of Huntsville v. Millergreen2 sentences2009Reynolds v. Colonial Bank, 874 So.2d 497, 503 (Ala.2003) (“‘[I]f there is an absence of jurisdiction over the subject-matter, this ends the inquiry; it cannot be waived or supplied by consent.” ’ (quoting Wilkinson v. Henry, 221 Ala. 254, 256 , 128 So. 362, 364 (1930) (emphasis added))); Ex parte Smith, 438 So.2d 766, 768 (Ala.1983) (‘Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may not be *226 waived by the parties and it is the duty of an appellate court to consider lack of subject matter jurisdiction ex mero motu.’ (citing City of Huntsville v. Miller, 271 Ala. 687, 688 , 127 So.2d 606, 608 (1958))) 2009Reynolds v. Colonial Bank, 874 So.2d 497, 503 (Ala.2003) (“‘[I]f there is an absence of jurisdiction over the subject-matter, this ends the inquiry; it cannot be waived or supplied by consent.” ’ (quoting Wilkinson v. Henry, 221 Ala. 254, 256 , 128 So. 362, 364 (1930) (emphasis added))); Ex parte Smith, 438 So.2d 766, 768 (Ala.1983) (‘Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may not be *226 waived by the parties and it is the duty of an appellate court to consider lack of subject matter jurisdiction ex mero motu.’ (citing City of Huntsville v. Miller, 271 Ala. 687, 688 , 127 So.2d 606, 608 (1958))) | 2 | 3 |
Bibb v. Boydgreen2 sentences2009Relations, 423 So.2d 281 (Ala.Civ.App.1982); and Bibb v. Boyd, 417 So.2d 206, 208 (Ala.Civ.App.1982) (‘[I]n any event, lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter is not waivable and may be raised ex mero motu by either a trial court or by an appellate court’ (citing 5 Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, Civil § 1393)). 2009Relations, 423 So.2d 231 (Ala.Civ.App.1982); and Bibb v. Boyd, 417 So.2d 206, 208 (Ala.Civ.App.1982) (“[I]n any event, lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter is not waivable and may be raised ex mero motu by either a trial court or by an appellate court.” (citing 5 Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, Civil § 1393)). | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Albritton
green
2 sentences1997This is a universal principle, as old as the law itself; hence the question of jurisdiction is a question of primary importance in every case, and, if there is an absence of jurisdiction over the subject-matter, this ends the inquiry; it cannot be waived or supplied by consent." Ex parte Tubbs , 585 So.2d 1301 , 1302 (Ala. 1991) (quoting State v. Albritton , 251 Ala. 422 , 424-25 , 37 So.2d 640 , 642-43 (1948)). "[A] party does not waive the jurisdictional defense by appearing at a hearing on the motion or petition that the party claims to be defective for failure to comply with the UCCJA." An 1997This is a universal principle, as old as the law itself; hence the question of jurisdiction is a question of primary importance in every case, and, if there is an absence of jurisdiction over the subject-matter, this ends the inquiry; it cannot be waived or supplied by consent." Ex parte Tubbs , 585 So.2d 1301 , 1302 (Ala. 1991) (quoting State v. Albritton , 251 Ala. 422 , 424-25 , 37 So.2d 640 , 642-43 (1948)). "[A] party does not waive the jurisdictional defense by appearing at a hearing on the motion or petition that the party claims to be defective for failure to comply with the UCCJA." An | 4 | 1991–1997 |
Ex Parte Tubbs
green
2 sentences1997(Citations omitted.)" 585 So.2d at 1302 . 1997This is a universal principle, as old as the law itself; hence the question of jurisdiction is a question of primary importance in every case, and, if there is an absence of jurisdiction over the subject-matter, this ends the inquiry; it cannot be waived or supplied by consent." Ex parte Tubbs , 585 So.2d 1301 , 1302 (Ala. 1991) (quoting State v. Albritton , 251 Ala. 422 , 424-25 , 37 So.2d 640 , 642-43 (1948)). "[A] party does not waive the jurisdictional defense by appearing at a hearing on the motion or petition that the party claims to be defective for failure to comply with the UCCJA." An | 2 | 1997–1997 |
Power v. Ratliff
green
2 sentences1930This is a universal principle, as old as the law itself; hence the question of jurisdiction is a question of primary importance in every case, and, if there is an absence of jurisdiction over the subject-matter, this ends the inquiry; it cannot be waived or supplied by consent. 7 R.C.L. 1029, §§ 57, 59, and 70; Power, Secretary of State, v. Ratcliff et al., 112 Miss. 88 , 72 So. 864 , Ann. 1930This is a universal principle, as old as the law itself; hence the question of jurisdiction is a question of primary importance in every case, and, if there is an absence of jurisdiction over the subject-matter, this ends the inquiry; it cannot be waived or supplied by consent. 7 R.C.L. 1029, §§ 57, 59, and 70; Power, Secretary of State, v. Ratcliff et al., 112 Miss. 88 , 72 So. 864 , Ann. | 2 | 1930–1948 |
City Council of City of McAlester v. Milwee
neutral
2 sentences1948C.L. 1029, §§ 57, 59 and 70; Power, Secretary of State, v. Ratliff et al., 112 Miss. 88 , 72 So. 864 , Ann.Cas.1918E, 1146; City Council of McAlester v. Milwee, 31 Okl. 620 , 122 P. 173 , 40 L.R.A.,N.S., 576. 1948C.L. 1029, §§ 57, 59 and 70; Power, Secretary of State, v. Ratliff et al., 112 Miss. 88 , 72 So. 864 , Ann.Cas.1918E, 1146; City Council of McAlester v. Milwee, 31 Okl. 620 , 122 P. 173 , 40 L.R.A.,N.S., 576. | 2 | 1930–1948 |
Payne v. Department of Industrial Relations
green
1 sentence2009Relations, 423 So.2d 231 (Ala.Civ.App.1982); and Bibb v. Boyd, 417 So.2d 206, 208 (Ala.Civ.App.1982) (“[I]n any event, lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter is not waivable and may be raised ex mero motu by either a trial court or by an appellate court.” (citing 5 Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, Civil § 1393)). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Henderson v. Hall
green
2 sentences1958This is a universal principle, as old as the law itself; hence the question of jurisdiction is a question of primary importance in every case, and, if there is an absence of jurisdiction over the subject-matter, this ends the inquiry; it cannot be waived or supplied by consent. * * *” And it has been said that “jurisdiction of the subject-matter cannot be conferred up on any court by estoppel, or even by affirmative agreement.” Henderson v. Hall, 134 Ala. 455, 506 , 32 So. 840 , 852, 63 L.R.A. 673 . 1958This is a universal principle, as old as the law itself; hence the question of jurisdiction is a question of primary importance in every case, and, if there is an absence of jurisdiction over the subject-matter, this ends the inquiry; it cannot be waived or supplied by consent. * * *" And it has been said that "jurisdiction of the subject-matter cannot be conferred upon any court by estoppel, or even by affirmative agreement." Henderson v. Hall, 134 Ala. 455, 506 , 32 So. 840 , 852, 63 L.R.A. 673 . | 1 | 1958–1958 |
Randolph v. Randolph
green
2 sentences1958Cf. Randolph v. Randolph, 245 Ala. 689, 693 , 18 So.2d 555 . 1958Cf. Randolph v. Randolph, 245 Ala. 689, 693 , 18 So.2d 555 . | 1 | 1958–1958 |
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.