upon principle in Alabama

10 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1853–1977 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.

Followed or applied (3)

Case	Followed	Cited
Drury v. Haydengreen scotus · 1884 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1918–1918 1 sentence 1918The reversal entered by the Supreme Court was rested upon a finding of fact only, not upon a different view of the law. 111 U. S. 227 , 4 Sup. Ct. 405, 28 L.	1	1
Hayden v. Drurygreen uscirct · 1880 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1918–1918 1 sentence 1918C.) 3 Fed. 782, 788, 789 , cited above, reflected in the least upon the doctrine accepted by the lower court in that case.	1	1
Payne v. Longgreen · 1898 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1910–1910 1 sentence 1910The objection by the defendant to the question propounded to- plaintiff, “What was the speed allowed your train by the company?” and the motion to exclude the answer to the question, fall within the principle above stated, and on the following authorities the trial court cannot be put in error for the ruling made aarainst defendant and covered by the sevententh and eighteenth grounds in the assignment of errors.— McCalman’s Case, 96 Ala. 98 , 11 South. 408 ; Billingsley’s Case, 96 Ala. 126 , 11 South. 409 ; Taylor’s Case, 100 Ala. 142 , 14 South. 634 ; Ellis’ Case, 105 Ala. 72, 75 , 17 South.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (17)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Community Blood and Plasma Service, Inc. green alacivapp · 1972 2 sentences 1977The State contends error in the reliance of the trial court upon the rule of Perlmutter v. Beth David Hospital, supra. It insists that the rule of Perlmutter was rejected in our case of State v. Community Blood & Plasma Service, Inc., 48 Ala.App. 658 , 267 So.2d 176 (1972). 1977The State contends error in the reliance of the trial court upon the rule of Perlmutter v. Beth David Hospital, supra. It insists that the rule of Perlmutter was rejected in our case of State v. Community Blood & Plasma Service, Inc., 48 Ala.App. 658 , 267 So.2d 176 (1972).	1	1977–1977
Winne v. . Winne green · 1901 2 sentences 1951In the very nature of things, nine years in the life of a child so' change conditions that it is out of the power of an earthly-tribunal to restore the parties to their original situation and environment, and the courts therefore compel them to stand upon and abide by the record they have made.” To the same effect see Winne v. Winne, 166 N.Y. 263 , 59 N.E. 832 , 82 Am.St.Rep. 647 ; Brinton v. Van Cott, 8 Utah 480 , 33 P. 218 . 1951In the very nature of things, nine years in the life of a child so' change conditions that it is out of the power of an earthly-tribunal to restore the parties to their original situation and environment, and the courts therefore compel them to stand upon and abide by the record they have made.” To the same effect see Winne v. Winne, 166 N.Y. 263 , 59 N.E. 832 , 82 Am.St.Rep. 647 ; Brinton v. Van Cott, 8 Utah 480 , 33 P. 218 .	1	1951–1951
Brinton ex rel. Pavey v. Van Cott neutral utah · 1893 2 sentences 1951In the very nature of things, nine years in the life of a child so change conditions that it is out of the power of an earthly tribunal to restore the parties to their original situation and environment, and the courts therefore compel them to stand upon and abide by the record they have made." To the same effect see Winne v. Winne, 166 N.Y. 263 , 59 N.E. 832 , 82 Am.St.Rep. 647 ; Brinton v. Van Cott, 8 Utah 480 , 33 P. 218 . 1951In the very nature of things, nine years in the life of a child so' change conditions that it is out of the power of an earthly-tribunal to restore the parties to their original situation and environment, and the courts therefore compel them to stand upon and abide by the record they have made.” To the same effect see Winne v. Winne, 166 N.Y. 263 , 59 N.E. 832 , 82 Am.St.Rep. 647 ; Brinton v. Van Cott, 8 Utah 480 , 33 P. 218 .	1	1951–1951
Walker v. Alabama, Tennessee & Northern Railway Co. neutral ala · 1915 2 sentences 1942This rule is well defined and applied in Walker v. Alabama, Tennessee & Northern Railway Co., 194 Ala. 360 , 70 So. 125 , and Southern Ry. 1942This rule is well defined and applied in Walker v. Alabama, Tennessee & Northern Railway Co., 194 Ala. 360 , 70 So. 125 , and Southern Ry.	1	1942–1942
Bickart v. City of Columbia neutral ala · 1912 2 sentences 1936Code, § 9084; Bluthenthal & Bickart v. City of Columbia, 175 Ala. 398 , 57 So. 814 . 1936Code, § 9084; Bluthenthal & Bickart v. City of Columbia, 175 Ala. 398 , 57 So. 814 .	1	1936–1936
Bates v. Jones green ala · 1932 2 sentences 1935This is upon the principle of our case of Bates v. Jones, 224 Ala. 82 , 139 So. 242 . 1935This is upon the principle of our case of Bates v. Jones, 224 Ala. 82 , 139 So. 242 .	1	1935–1935
Pratt v. Nixon green ala · 1890 1 sentence 1921Pratt v. Nixon, 91 Ala. 192 , 8 South. 751 ; Jasper Trust Co. v. K.	1	1921–1921
McCalman v. State neutral ala · 1892 1 sentence 1910The objection by the defendant to the question propounded to- plaintiff, “What was the speed allowed your train by the company?” and the motion to exclude the answer to the question, fall within the principle above stated, and on the following authorities the trial court cannot be put in error for the ruling made aarainst defendant and covered by the sevententh and eighteenth grounds in the assignment of errors.— McCalman’s Case, 96 Ala. 98 , 11 South. 408 ; Billingsley’s Case, 96 Ala. 126 , 11 South. 409 ; Taylor’s Case, 100 Ala. 142 , 14 South. 634 ; Ellis’ Case, 105 Ala. 72, 75 , 17 South.	1	1910–1910
Billingsley v. State neutral ala · 1892 1 sentence 1910The objection by the defendant to the question propounded to- plaintiff, “What was the speed allowed your train by the company?” and the motion to exclude the answer to the question, fall within the principle above stated, and on the following authorities the trial court cannot be put in error for the ruling made aarainst defendant and covered by the sevententh and eighteenth grounds in the assignment of errors.— McCalman’s Case, 96 Ala. 98 , 11 South. 408 ; Billingsley’s Case, 96 Ala. 126 , 11 South. 409 ; Taylor’s Case, 100 Ala. 142 , 14 South. 634 ; Ellis’ Case, 105 Ala. 72, 75 , 17 South.	1	1910–1910
Traylor v. State neutral ala · 1893 1 sentence 1910The objection by the defendant to the question propounded to- plaintiff, “What was the speed allowed your train by the company?” and the motion to exclude the answer to the question, fall within the principle above stated, and on the following authorities the trial court cannot be put in error for the ruling made aarainst defendant and covered by the sevententh and eighteenth grounds in the assignment of errors.— McCalman’s Case, 96 Ala. 98 , 11 South. 408 ; Billingsley’s Case, 96 Ala. 126 , 11 South. 409 ; Taylor’s Case, 100 Ala. 142 , 14 South. 634 ; Ellis’ Case, 105 Ala. 72, 75 , 17 South.	1	1910–1910
Ellis v. State neutral ala · 1894 1 sentence 1910The objection by the defendant to the question propounded to- plaintiff, “What was the speed allowed your train by the company?” and the motion to exclude the answer to the question, fall within the principle above stated, and on the following authorities the trial court cannot be put in error for the ruling made aarainst defendant and covered by the sevententh and eighteenth grounds in the assignment of errors.— McCalman’s Case, 96 Ala. 98 , 11 South. 408 ; Billingsley’s Case, 96 Ala. 126 , 11 South. 409 ; Taylor’s Case, 100 Ala. 142 , 14 South. 634 ; Ellis’ Case, 105 Ala. 72, 75 , 17 South.	1	1910–1910
Evans v. State neutral ala · 1895 1 sentence 1910The objection by the defendant to the question propounded to- plaintiff, “What was the speed allowed your train by the company?” and the motion to exclude the answer to the question, fall within the principle above stated, and on the following authorities the trial court cannot be put in error for the ruling made aarainst defendant and covered by the sevententh and eighteenth grounds in the assignment of errors.— McCalman’s Case, 96 Ala. 98 , 11 South. 408 ; Billingsley’s Case, 96 Ala. 126 , 11 South. 409 ; Taylor’s Case, 100 Ala. 142 , 14 South. 634 ; Ellis’ Case, 105 Ala. 72, 75 , 17 South.	1	1910–1910
Nelson & Hatch v. Dunn green · 1849 1 sentence 1882Jur. § 663; Gordon v. Bell, 50 Ala. 220 ; Nelson v. Dunn, 15 Ala. 501 .	1	1882–1882
Wolcot v. Knight neutral mass · 1810 1 sentence 1853It does not apply to the adverse holder, and as to him it is well settled that the grantor may maintain ejectment.—Williams v. Jackson, 5 Johns. 489 ; Livingston v. Trovers, 2 Hill (N. Y.) R. 489; Wolcott v. Knight, 6 Mass. 418 ; Brinly v. Whiting, 5 Pick. 348 ; Edwards v. Rogs, 18 Verm. 473 ; University of Vermont v. Joslin, 21 Verm. 52 ; 4 Kent’s Com. 448.	1	1853–1853
Williams v. Jackson neutral nycterr · 1809 1 sentence 1853It does not apply to the adverse holder, and as to him it is well settled that the grantor may maintain ejectment.—Williams v. Jackson, 5 Johns. 489 ; Livingston v. Trovers, 2 Hill (N. Y.) R. 489; Wolcott v. Knight, 6 Mass. 418 ; Brinly v. Whiting, 5 Pick. 348 ; Edwards v. Rogs, 18 Verm. 473 ; University of Vermont v. Joslin, 21 Verm. 52 ; 4 Kent’s Com. 448.	1	1853–1853
Edwards v. Roys neutral vt · 1846 1 sentence 1853It does not apply to the adverse holder, and as to him it is well settled that the grantor may maintain ejectment.—Williams v. Jackson, 5 Johns. 489 ; Livingston v. Trovers, 2 Hill (N. Y.) R. 489; Wolcott v. Knight, 6 Mass. 418 ; Brinly v. Whiting, 5 Pick. 348 ; Edwards v. Rogs, 18 Verm. 473 ; University of Vermont v. Joslin, 21 Verm. 52 ; 4 Kent’s Com. 448.	1	1853–1853
University of Vermont v. Joslyn neutral vt · 1848 1 sentence 1853It does not apply to the adverse holder, and as to him it is well settled that the grantor may maintain ejectment.—Williams v. Jackson, 5 Johns. 489 ; Livingston v. Trovers, 2 Hill (N. Y.) R. 489; Wolcott v. Knight, 6 Mass. 418 ; Brinly v. Whiting, 5 Pick. 348 ; Edwards v. Rogs, 18 Verm. 473 ; University of Vermont v. Joslin, 21 Verm. 52 ; 4 Kent’s Com. 448.	1	1853–1853

Where else courts name it

NY 46 (1841–2014) CA 41 (1891–2021) TX 33 (1858–2007) IL 26 (1854–2011) IN 25 (1859–2015) OK 25 (1894–2015) GA 23 (1897–2016) FL 23 (1901–2000) NC 22 (1796–1987) MO 22 (1879–1995) KS 15 (1866–1997) VA 13 (1857–2005) MI 13 (1867–1984) WA 13 (1899–1997) OR 12 (1872–1993) OH 12 (1924–2025) AL 10 (1853–1977) CO 10 (1871–2009) ID 8 (1912–1989) PA 8 (1890–1987) AR 7 (1912–1958) WV 7 (1900–1960) LA 6 (1944–2010) NE 5 (1886–2003) MT 5 (1872–1955) MS 4 (1936–1982) VT 4 (1860–1936) TN 4 (1906–2012) WY 4 (1898–1998) IA 4 (1868–1963) MN 4 (1876–1945) WI 4 (1891–1951) KY 4 (1918–1971) NJ 3 (1936–1956) NM 3 (1948–2016) MD 3 (1973–2013) ND 3 (1921–1986) MA 3 (1915–1995) AZ 3 (1896–1938) UT 2 (1935–1971) SD 2 (1906–1977)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check