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.
10 Alabama opinions name it 3 courts 1970–2023 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Shortgreen1 sentence2023See United States v. Rosario, 237 F. Supp. 2d 242, 245 (E.D.N.Y. 2002) (noting that the party claiming immunity by estoppel has the burden of proving that there was "a 'clear and unambiguous' promise" of immunity (quoting Readco, Inc. v. Marine Midland Bank, 81 F.3d 295, 301 (2d Cir. 1996))); and United States v. Short, 387 F. App'x 308, 313 (4th Cir. 2010) (not selected for publication in the Federal Reporter) (noting that, for the doctrine of " 'equitable immunity' " to apply, "the defendant bears the burden of proving the existence of an equitable immunity agreement"). | 1 | 1 |
Readco, Inc., R.D.P. Associates, Lan Associates Xii and Antonio Reale v. Marine Midland Bank Eagle Rock Holding, Inc., a New York Corp.green1 sentence2023See United States v. Rosario, 237 F. Supp. 2d 242, 245 (E.D.N.Y. 2002) (noting that the party claiming immunity by estoppel has the burden of proving that there was "a 'clear and unambiguous' promise" of immunity (quoting Readco, Inc. v. Marine Midland Bank, 81 F.3d 295, 301 (2d Cir. 1996))); and United States v. Short, 387 F. App'x 308, 313 (4th Cir. 2010) (not selected for publication in the Federal Reporter) (noting that, for the doctrine of " 'equitable immunity' " to apply, "the defendant bears the burden of proving the existence of an equitable immunity agreement"). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Rosariogreen1 sentence2023See United States v. Rosario, 237 F. Supp. 2d 242, 245 (E.D.N.Y. 2002) (noting that the party claiming immunity by estoppel has the burden of proving that there was "a 'clear and unambiguous' promise" of immunity (quoting Readco, Inc. v. Marine Midland Bank, 81 F.3d 295, 301 (2d Cir. 1996))); and United States v. Short, 387 F. App'x 308, 313 (4th Cir. 2010) (not selected for publication in the Federal Reporter) (noting that, for the doctrine of " 'equitable immunity' " to apply, "the defendant bears the burden of proving the existence of an equitable immunity agreement"). | 1 | 1 |
Mosley v. Mosleygreen2 sentences2006In other words, a presumption against a party is not sufficient competent and legal evidence that the party has committed adultery." Langley, 617 So.2d at 680 ; see also Mosley v. Mosley, 747 So.2d 894, 899 (Ala.Civ.App. 1999). 2006In other words, a presumption against a party is not sufficient competent and legal evidence that the party has committed adultery." Langley , 617 So.2d at 680 ; see also Mosley v. Mosley , 747 So.2d 894 , 899 (Ala.Civ.App. 1999). | 1 | 1 |
K.N. Bhatia, M.D. v. S. Erik Johnstongreen1 sentence1996See also Bhatia v. Johnston, 818 F.2d 418 (5th Cir. 1987) (under the FAA, the party resisting arbitration has a heavy burden of showing that he is entitled to a jury trial); and see Tenneco Resins, Inc. v. Davy Int'l, AG, 770 F.2d 416 (5th Cir.1985) (the burden on a party seeking to prove a waiver of arbitration is a heavy one). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Langley v. Langley
green
2 sentences2006Although a party's invoking the privilege against self-incrimination in response to questions regarding adultery raises a presumption against that party, Langley, 617 So.2d at 680 , this court has also stated: *326 "[T]he `presumption that operates against a party claiming the privilege' is not `sufficient proof' to lead the guarded discretion of a reasonable and just mind to the conclusion that the act of adultery was committed as a necessary inference. 2006Although a party's invoking the privilege against self-incrimination in response to questions regarding adultery raises a presumption against that party, Langley , 617 So.2d at 680 , this court has also stated: *Page 326 "[T]he `presumption that operates against a party claiming the privilege' is not `sufficient proof to lead the guarded discretion of a reasonable and just mind to the conclusion that the act of adultery was committed as a necessary inference. | 2 | 1999–2006 |
Perkins v. Perkins
green
1 sentence2018Perkins v. Perkins , 465 So.2d 414 (Ala. Civ. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
DALE CTY. DEPT. OF PENSIONS AND SEC. v. Robles
green
1 sentence2017Dep't of Pensions & Sec. v. Robles , 368 So.2d 39 , 43 (Ala. Civ. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Storey v. Shearson-American Express
green
1 sentence1996The Fifth Circuit also said that that court's "precedent places a `heavy burden' on a party claiming waiver of arbitration rights." Storey v. Shearson-American Express Inc., 928 F.2d 159 , 163 (5th Cir.1991). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Tenneco Resins, Inc., and Tenn-Uss Chemicals Co. v. Davy International, Ag And/or Davy McKee International, Ag
green
1 sentence1996See also Bhatia v. Johnston, 818 F.2d 418 (5th Cir. 1987) (under the FAA, the party resisting arbitration has a heavy burden of showing that he is entitled to a jury trial); and see Tenneco Resins, Inc. v. Davy Int'l, AG, 770 F.2d 416 (5th Cir.1985) (the burden on a party seeking to prove a waiver of arbitration is a heavy one). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Anonymous v. Anonymous
green
2 sentences1992In Anonymous v. Anonymous , 353 So.2d 510 (Ala.Civ.App. 1977); and in Cokely v. Cokely , 469 So.2d 635 (Ala.Civ.App. 1985), this court found that claiming the privilege against self-incrimination may be brought to the attention of the trier of the facts, and that it raises a presumption that operates against the party claiming the privilege. 1992In Anonymous v. Anonymous, 353 So.2d 510 (Ala.Civ.App.1977); and in Cokely v. Cokely, 469 So.2d 635 (Ala.Civ.App.1985), this court found that claiming the privilege against self-incrimination may be brought to the attention of the trier of the facts, and that it raises a presumption that operates against the party claiming the privilege. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Kirkland v. Kirkland
green
2 sentences1992Cokely v. Cokely , 469 So.2d 635 (Ala.Civ.App. 1985), and Anonymous, supra. See also Kirkland v. Kirkland , 236 Ala. 120 , 181 So. 96 (1938). 1992Cokely v. Cokely , 469 So.2d 635 (Ala.Civ.App. 1985), and Anonymous, supra. See also Kirkland v. Kirkland , 236 Ala. 120 , 181 So. 96 (1938). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Cokely v. Cokely
green
2 sentences1992In Anonymous v. Anonymous , 353 So.2d 510 (Ala.Civ.App. 1977); and in Cokely v. Cokely , 469 So.2d 635 (Ala.Civ.App. 1985), this court found that claiming the privilege against self-incrimination may be brought to the attention of the trier of the facts, and that it raises a presumption that operates against the party claiming the privilege. 1992In Anonymous v. Anonymous, 353 So.2d 510 (Ala.Civ.App.1977); and in Cokely v. Cokely, 469 So.2d 635 (Ala.Civ.App.1985), this court found that claiming the privilege against self-incrimination may be brought to the attention of the trier of the facts, and that it raises a presumption that operates against the party claiming the privilege. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Louisville & NR Co. v. Garrett
green
1 sentence1981In Louisville and Nashville Railroad Co. v. Garrett, 378 So.2d 668 (Ala.1979), we held that to preserve an error for review as to a charge to the jury, Rule 51, ARCP, requires that the party claiming error must not only enter an objection, but also state the grounds therefor. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Kroger Company v. Puckett
green
1 sentence1979Kroger Co. v. Puckett , Ala.Civ.App., 351 So.2d 582 (1977). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Duncan v. State
green
2 sentences1970In Duncan v. State, 278 Ala. 145 , 176 So.2d 840 , the court reviewed many cases holding that a person can consent to search without a warrant and thereby waive the protection of the Fourth Amendment against invasion of the right of privacy, but declared that every reasonable presumption must be indulged against waiver of fundamental constitutional rights; that clear and convincing evidence of waiver is necessary and the burden is on the party claiming waiver to prove it. 1970In Duncan v. State, 278 Ala. 145 , 176 So.2d 840 , the court reviewed many cases holding that a person can consent to search without a warrant and thereby waive the protection of the Fourth Amendment against invasion of the right of privacy, but declared that every reasonable presumption must be indulged against waiver of fundamental constitutional rights; that clear and convincing evidence of waiver is necessary and the burden is on the party claiming waiver to prove it. | 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.