9 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Riddlesprigger v. Ervingreen2 sentences2015Atkins v. Shirley, 561 So.2d 1075, 1077 (Ala.1990); Riddlesprigger v. Ervin, 519 So.2d 486, 487 (Ala.1987); State ex rel. 2009Unless the court in its order for dismissal otherwise specifies, a dismissal under this subdivision ... operates as an adjudication upon the merits.” Concerning the scope of Rule 41(b), this Court held in Riddlesprigger v. Ervin, 519 So.2d 486 (Ala.1987): “Rule 41(b) has been construed to mean that a trial court has the inherent power to dismiss a cause for want of prosecution or for failure to comply with court rules or orders. | 3 | 5 |
Atkins v. Shirleygreen2 sentences2015Atkins v. Shirley, 561 So.2d 1075, 1077 (Ala.1990); Riddlesprigger v. Ervin, 519 So.2d 486, 487 (Ala.1987); State ex rel. 2008Atkins v. Shirley, 561 So.2d 1075, 1077 (Ala.1990); Riddlesprigger v. Ervin, 519 So.2d 486, 487 (Ala.1987); State ex rel. | 2 | 2 |
General Finance Corp. v. Smithgreen1 sentence1992General Finance Corp. v. Smith, 505 So.2d 1045, 1049 (Ala.1987); Bucyrus-Erie Co. v. Von Haden, 416 So.2d 699, 701 (Ala.1982); Thompson-Weinman & Co. v. Robinson, 386 So.2d 409, 409 (Ala.1980). | 1 | 1 |
Bucyrus-Erie Co. v. Von Hadengreen1 sentence1992General Finance Corp. v. Smith, 505 So.2d 1045, 1049 (Ala.1987); Bucyrus-Erie Co. v. Von Haden, 416 So.2d 699, 701 (Ala.1982); Thompson-Weinman & Co. v. Robinson, 386 So.2d 409, 409 (Ala.1980). | 1 | 1 |
Thompson-Weinman & Co. v. Robinsongreen1 sentence1992General Finance Corp. v. Smith, 505 So.2d 1045, 1049 (Ala.1987); Bucyrus-Erie Co. v. Von Haden, 416 So.2d 699, 701 (Ala.1982); Thompson-Weinman & Co. v. Robinson, 386 So.2d 409, 409 (Ala.1980). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bibb v. Boyd
green
2 sentences2000Unless the court in its order for dismissal otherwise specifies, a dismissal under this subdivision and any dismissal not provided for in this rule, other than a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, for improper venue, or for failure to join a party under Rule 19, operates as an adjudication upon the merits.” (Emphasis added.) We note the fact that the juvenile court judge stated that the dismissal of the 1990 action was based on the mother’s “failure to prosecute.” A dismissal for want of prosecution is clearly “with prejudice.” See Bibb v. Boyd, 417 So.2d 206 (Ala.Civ.App.1982). 2000Unless the court in its order for dismissal otherwise specifies, a dismissal under this subdivision and any dismissal not provided for in this rule, other than a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, for improper venue, or for failure to join a party under Rule 19, operates as an adjudication upon the merits. " (Emphasis added.) We note the fact that the juvenile court judge stated that the dismissal of the *404 1990 action was based on the mother's "failure to prosecute." A dismissal for want of prosecution is clearly "with prejudice." See Bibb v. Boyd, 417 So.2d 206 (Ala.Civ.App.1982). | 2 | 2000–2000 |
Semtek International Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.
green
1 sentence2003Unless the court in its order for dismissal otherwise specifies, a dismissal under this subdivision and any dismissal not provided for in this rule , other than a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, for improper venue, or for failure to join a party under Rule 19, operates as an adjudication upon the merits ." (Emphasis added.) "[T]he effect of the `adjudication upon the merits' default provision of Rule 41(b)[, Fed.R.Civ.P.,] . . . is simply that, unlike a dismissal `without prejudice,' the dismissal in the present case barred refiling of the same claim in the [same court]." 2 Semtek Internat | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.