10 Alabama opinions name it 3 courts 1980–2005 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 |
|---|---|---|
Swain v. Terrygreen2 sentences1994See Harris v. State, 281 Ala. 622 , 206 So.2d 868 (1968); see, also, Swain v. Terry, 454 So.2d 948 (Ala.1984). 1993See Harris v. State , 281 Ala. 622 , 206 So.2d 868 (1968); see, also, Swain v. Terry , 454 So.2d 948 (Ala. 1984). | 3 | 3 |
Harris v. Stategreen2 sentences1994See Harris v. State, 281 Ala. 622 , 206 So.2d 868 (1968); see, also, Swain v. Terry, 454 So.2d 948 (Ala.1984). 1994See Harris v. State, 281 Ala. 622 , 206 So.2d 868 (1968); see, also, Swain v. Terry, 454 So.2d 948 (Ala.1984). | 3 | 3 |
Richards v. Lennox Industries, Inc.green2 sentences1994In Richards v. Lennox Industries, Inc., 574 So.2d 736, 739 (Ala.1990): "The burden of establishing the privilege rests with the client or with the party objecting to the disclosure of the communication. 1993“The burden of establishing the privilege rests with the ... party objecting to the disclosure of the communication.” Richards v. Lennox Indus., Inc., 574 So.2d 736, 739 (Ala.1990) (attorney-client privilege). | 2 | 2 |
Ex Parte General Motors Corp.green2 sentences2005See Ex parte General Motors , 769 So.2d at 909 . 2002In Ex parte General Motors Corp ., 769 So.2d 903 , 909 (Ala. 1999), dealing with the burden of proof on a motion for summary judgment, this Court adopted Justice *Page 36 Houston's special concurrence in Berner v. Caldwell , 543 So.2d 686 , 691 (Ala. 1989): "`The manner in which the movant's burden of production is met depends upon which party has the burden of proof . . . at trial.'" Because at trial the Department has the burden of proof to justify a law that on its face discriminates against interstate commerce, the trial court erred in entering a summary judgment in favor of the Department | 1 | 2 |
Hoover, Inc. v. State Dept. of Revenuegreen2 sentences2005However, it is my belief that the holding of the Alabama Supreme Court in Hoover, Inc. v. State Department of Revenue, 833 So.2d 32, 35 (Ala.2002)(" Hoover I "), wherein the Court stated that the Department "had the burden of establishing a defense to a facially discriminatory tax scheme" presupposed that those transactions did implicate the Commerce Clause. 2005In Hoover I, the Supreme Court concluded that the Department has "the burden of establishing a defense to a facially discriminatory tax scheme." 833 So.2d at 35 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Central Alabama Elec. Co-Op. v. Tapleygreen2 sentences2001Coop. v. Tapley, 546 So.2d 371, 381 (Ala.1989), they were required to "`support [their] motion with credible evidence, using any of the materials specified in Rule 56(c), [Ala.] R. 2001Coop. v. Tapley , 546 So.2d 371 , 381 (Ala. 1989), they were required to "`support [their] motion with credible evidence, using any of the materials specified in Rule 56(c), [Ala.] R. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Whitaker v. Coca-Cola Company USA
green
1 sentence2005Because, at trial, the lawyers would have the burden of establishing the defense of contributory negligence (that the Bank was not entitled to indemnity because it was a joint tortfeasor), see Whitaker v. Coca-Cola Co. USA , 812 So.2d 1252 (Ala.Civ.App. 2001), the lawyers were required to support their motion with credible evidence, and the proof was required to be such that the lawyers would be entitled to a judgment as a matter of law ("JML") if the evidence was not controverted at trial. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Berner v. Caldwell
green
1 sentence2002In Ex parte General Motors Corp ., 769 So.2d 903 , 909 (Ala. 1999), dealing with the burden of proof on a motion for summary judgment, this Court adopted Justice *Page 36 Houston's special concurrence in Berner v. Caldwell , 543 So.2d 686 , 691 (Ala. 1989): "`The manner in which the movant's burden of production is met depends upon which party has the burden of proof . . . at trial.'" Because at trial the Department has the burden of proof to justify a law that on its face discriminates against interstate commerce, the trial court erred in entering a summary judgment in favor of the Department | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Ex Parte Harris
neutral
1 sentence1981Harris v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 367 So.2d 524 (1978), cert. denied, Ala., 367 So.2d 534 (1979). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Harris v. State
green
1 sentence1981Harris v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 367 So.2d 524 (1978), cert. denied, Ala., 367 So.2d 534 (1979). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Equitable Accident Insurance v. Osborn
neutral
1 sentence1980In Equitable Accident Insurance Co. v. Osborn , 90 Ala. 201 , 9 So. 869 (1890), the Court stated that exceptions under an exclusionary provision are "construed most strongly against the insurer, and liberally in favor of the insured." Furthermore, assert Appellants, the duty of an insurance company to defend liability actions is more extensive than its duty to pay. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Blakeney
green
1 sentence1980In Hartford Fire Insurance Company v. Blakeney , 340 So.2d 754 (Ala. 1976), an insured pushed a social guest down a flight of steps following a fight in the insured's home and the court upheld the jury charge that "it is an accidental injury where an unexpected result arises from an intended act." It is elementary, say Appellants, that the burden of establishing an exception to liability coverage is on the insurer. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.