10 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
McGimsey v. Graygreen2 sentences2018See, e.g., McGimsey v. Gray , 260 So. 3d 25 (Ala. 2018) (discussing elements of an undue-influence claim in a will contest). 2018See, e.g., McGimsey v. Gray , 260 So. 3d 25 (Ala. 2018) (discussing elements of an undue-influence claim in a will contest). | 2 | 2 |
Hall v. Hallgreen2 sentences2011In order to establish the undue-activity element of an undue-influence claim, there must be interference by the allegedly dominant party “and such interference must go beyond mere compliance with the voluntary directions of the testator.” [emphasis added] (66 So.3d [at] 739 [779])’ “Citing Furrow v. Helton, 13 So.3d [350], [359] (Ala.2008) and Hall v. Hall, 502 So.2d 712, 714 (Ala.1987).” A.J.’s Brief in Support of Application for Rehearing at p. 5. 2011In order to establish the undue-activity element of an undue-influence claim, there must be interference by the allegedly dominant party ‘ “and such interference must go beyond mere compliance with the voluntary directions of the testator. ” ’ Furrow , 13 So.3d [350] at 359 [ (Ala.2008) ] (quoting Hall, 502 So.2d at 714 ). | 1 | 2 |
Wall v. Hodgesgreen1 sentence2012See Wall v. Hodges, 465 So.2d at 368 (even assuming sufficient evidence of the first two elements, undue-influence claim should not have gone to the jury in the absence of evidence that the named beneficiary “had anything to do with the procurement of the ... will or the [subsequent] re-execution of it”). | 1 | 1 |
Murphy v. Motherwaygreen1 sentence2011Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.” 66 So.3d at 778-79 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Rainegreen2 sentences2006Exch. v. Raine , 905 So.2d 832 , 835 (Ala.Civ.App. 2004) ("Although the supreme court might choose to revisit this issue, this court is bound by precedent."). *Page 1085 2006Exch. v. Raine, 905 So.2d 832, 835 (Ala.Civ.App.2004) ("Although the supreme court might choose to revisit this issue, this court is bound by precedent."). [3] Of course, a reexamination of the rule followed in Owens and Barnett , as it relates to the rights of a prior-designated beneficiary, vis ą vis the rights of a subsequently designated beneficiary, would still leave in place for the insurer the statutory protection afforded by the "facility of payment clause" of § 27-14-24. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Clifton v. Clifton
green
1 sentence2018Section 12-21-12, Ala. Code 1975; Bass v. SouthTrust Bank of Baldwin County , 538 So.2d 794 , 797-98 (Ala. 1989). 'Substantial evidence' is 'evidence of such weight and quality that fair-minded persons in the exercise of impartial judgment can reasonably infer the existence of the fact sought to be proved.' West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Fla. , 547 So.2d 870 , 871 (Ala. 1989)." In Pirtle v. Tucker , 960 So.2d 620 , 622 (Ala. 2006), we confirmed that "[w]e apply that same standard in reviewing a summary judgment entered in a will contest." Thus, in this case, we must determine whether s | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Allen v. Sconyers
green
1 sentence2018"This Court has recognized that whether 'the beneficiary was the dominant party in the relationship is usually a question of fact for the jury, and the jury may review the often circumstantial evidence as to whether there were controlling influences over the testator's behavior.' " Pirtle , 960 So.2d at 631 (quoting Allen , 669 So.2d at 117 ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
West v. Founders Life Assur. Co. of Florida
green
1 sentence2018Section 12-21-12, Ala. Code 1975; Bass v. SouthTrust Bank of Baldwin County , 538 So.2d 794 , 797-98 (Ala. 1989). 'Substantial evidence' is 'evidence of such weight and quality that fair-minded persons in the exercise of impartial judgment can reasonably infer the existence of the fact sought to be proved.' West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Fla. , 547 So.2d 870 , 871 (Ala. 1989)." In Pirtle v. Tucker , 960 So.2d 620 , 622 (Ala. 2006), we confirmed that "[w]e apply that same standard in reviewing a summary judgment entered in a will contest." Thus, in this case, we must determine whether s | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Pirtle v. Tucker
green
2 sentences2018Section 12-21-12, Ala. Code 1975; Bass v. SouthTrust Bank of Baldwin County , 538 So.2d 794 , 797-98 (Ala. 1989). 'Substantial evidence' is 'evidence of such weight and quality that fair-minded persons in the exercise of impartial judgment can reasonably infer the existence of the fact sought to be proved.' West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Fla. , 547 So.2d 870 , 871 (Ala. 1989)." In Pirtle v. Tucker , 960 So.2d 620 , 622 (Ala. 2006), we confirmed that "[w]e apply that same standard in reviewing a summary judgment entered in a will contest." Thus, in this case, we must determine whether s 2018"This Court has recognized that whether 'the beneficiary was the dominant party in the relationship is usually a question of fact for the jury, and the jury may review the often circumstantial evidence as to whether there were controlling influences over the testator's behavior.' " Pirtle , 960 So.2d at 631 (quoting Allen , 669 So.2d at 117 ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Bass v. SOUTHTRUST BANK OF BALDWIN CTY.
green
1 sentence2018Section 12-21-12, Ala. Code 1975; Bass v. SouthTrust Bank of Baldwin County , 538 So.2d 794 , 797-98 (Ala. 1989). 'Substantial evidence' is 'evidence of such weight and quality that fair-minded persons in the exercise of impartial judgment can reasonably infer the existence of the fact sought to be proved.' West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Fla. , 547 So.2d 870 , 871 (Ala. 1989)." In Pirtle v. Tucker , 960 So.2d 620 , 622 (Ala. 2006), we confirmed that "[w]e apply that same standard in reviewing a summary judgment entered in a will contest." Thus, in this case, we must determine whether s | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Furrow v. Helton
green
1 sentence2010In order to establish the undue-activity element of an undue-influence claim, there must be interference by the allegedly dominant party “‘and such interference must go beyond mere compliance with the voluntary directions of the testator.’ ” Furrow, 13 So.3d at 359 (quoting Hall, 502 So.2d at 714 ). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Ex Parte Helms
green
2 sentences2008He contends that the jury’s rejection of Furrow’s testimony and the jury’s acceptance of his testimony and the testimony of Winfred, Sr., and Bubba “was in and of itself [substantial evidence from which] the jury could have inferred [Furrow] was dominant in her exercise of a confidential relationship at the time the contested will was procured.” Gregory contends, therefore, that the facts in the present case present a jury question on the issue of undue influence as did the facts in Ex parte Helms, supra, in which this Court held that a summary judgment was improper on an undue-influence claim 2008He contends that the jury’s rejection of Furrow’s testimony and the jury’s acceptance of his testimony and the testimony of Winfred, Sr., and Bubba “was in and of itself [substantial evidence from which] the jury could have inferred [Furrow] was dominant in her exercise of a confidential relationship at the time the contested will was procured.” Gregory contends, therefore, that the facts in the present case present a jury question on the issue of undue influence as did the facts in Ex parte Helms, supra, in which this Court held that a summary judgment was improper on an undue-influence claim | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Southern Energy Homes, Inc. v. Washington
green
2 sentences2003Because, in reviewing the decision of the Court of Civil Appeals on a trial court ruling on a motion for JML, we must accept the tendencies of the evidence most favorable to the nonmovants, the contestants, Manning, supra, Washington, supra, and Palm Harbor Homes, supra, and must resolve all reasonable factual doubts in favor of the nonmovant, Willis, supra, we will so discuss the evidence and the facts. 2003Because, in reviewing the decision of the Court of Civil Appeals on a trial court ruling on a motion for JML, we must accept the tendencies of the evidence most favorable to the nonmovants, the contestants, Manning , supra , Washington , supra , and Palm Harbor Homes , supra , and must resolve all reasonable factual doubts in favor of the nonmovant, Willis , supra , we will so discuss the evidence and the facts. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Willis v. Parker
green
2 sentences2003Because, in reviewing the decision of the Court of Civil Appeals on a trial court ruling on a motion for JML, we must accept the tendencies of the evidence most favorable to the nonmovants, the contestants, Manning, supra, Washington, supra, and Palm Harbor Homes, supra, and must resolve all reasonable factual doubts in favor of the nonmovant, Willis, supra, we will so discuss the evidence and the facts. 2003Because, in reviewing the decision of the Court of Civil Appeals on a trial court ruling on a motion for JML, we must accept the tendencies of the evidence most favorable to the nonmovants, the contestants, Manning , supra , Washington , supra , and Palm Harbor Homes , supra , and must resolve all reasonable factual doubts in favor of the nonmovant, Willis , supra , we will so discuss the evidence and the facts. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Manning
green
2 sentences2003Because, in reviewing the decision of the Court of Civil Appeals on a trial court ruling on a motion for JML, we must accept the tendencies of the evidence most favorable to the nonmovants, the contestants, Manning, supra, Washington, supra, and Palm Harbor Homes, supra, and must resolve all reasonable factual doubts in favor of the nonmovant, Willis, supra, we will so discuss the evidence and the facts. 2003Because, in reviewing the decision of the Court of Civil Appeals on a trial court ruling on a motion for JML, we must accept the tendencies of the evidence most favorable to the nonmovants, the contestants, Manning , supra , Washington , supra , and Palm Harbor Homes , supra , and must resolve all reasonable factual doubts in favor of the nonmovant, Willis , supra , we will so discuss the evidence and the facts. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
In Re Estate of Moore
green
1 sentence1979The relationship of parent and child is considered confidential, Brothers, supra; Wolfe v. Thompson , 285 Ala. 745 , 235 So.2d 878 (1970); thus the first element of the undue influence test is satisfied. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Wolfe v. Thompson
neutral
2 sentences1979The relationship of parent and child is considered confidential, Brothers, supra; Wolfe v. Thompson , 285 Ala. 745 , 235 So.2d 878 (1970); thus the first element of the undue influence test is satisfied. 1979The relationship of parent and child is considered confidential, Brothers, supra; Wolfe v. Thompson , 285 Ala. 745 , 235 So.2d 878 (1970); thus the first element of the undue influence test is satisfied. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.