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.
9 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1912–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Prater v. Brian Nelson Excavating, LLCgreen2 sentences2023In Abbott, this Court stated: "The statute of limitations for a nuisance claim is two years.7 See, e.g., Ex parte Brian Nelson Excavating, LLC, 25 So. 3d 1143, 1145 (Ala. 2009) (discussing 'the two-year statute of limitations in § 6-2-38, Ala. Code 1975, for nuisance claims'). "____________________ 27 SC-2023-0289 "7The applicable statute of limitations for most of Mobile Health's other claims against Abbott -- negligence, wantonness, and fraud and deceit -- is also two years. 2023See, e.g., Ex parte Brian Nelson Excavating, LLC, 25 So. 3d 1143, 1145 (Ala. 2009) (discussing 'the two-year statute of limitations in § 6-2-38, Ala. Code 1975, for nuisance claims'). | 1 | 1 |
Hilliard v. CITY OF HUNTSVILLE ELEC. UTILITY BD.green1 sentence2015In Hilliard v. City of Huntsville Electric Utility Board, 599 So.2d 1108, 1112-13 (Ala.1992), this Court stated, regarding a nuisance claim: “Section 6-5-120, Ala.Code 1975, defines nuisance as ‘anything that works hurt, inconvenience or damage to another.’ This Court has construed this statute to be declaratory of the common law of nuisance. | 1 | 1 |
Young v. Ledfordgreen1 sentence2011Id. at 835-36 (Thompson, P.J., concurring specially, joined by Moore, J.). | 1 | 1 |
Wootten v. Iveygreen1 sentence2008See generally Wootten v. Ivey, 877 So.2d 585 (Ala.2003) (explaining the propriety of submitting a nuisance claim to a jury and, depending on the jury’s verdict, reserving to the trial court the decision on equitable relief). | 1 | 1 |
Aspinwall v. Gowensgreen1 sentence2000In Aspinwall v. Gowens, 405 So.2d 134, 138 (Ala.1981), this Court held: "[I]f a complaint has more than one count and the defendant believes that the evidence is not sufficient to support one or more of those counts, he must challenge this by motion for directed verdict [Rule 50, Ala.R.Civ.P., as amended in 1995, renamed the `motion for a directed verdict' as a `motion for a judgment as a matter of law'], specifying the count which is not supported by evidence and detailing with specificity the grounds upon which the particular count is not supported by the evidence. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Borland v. Sanders Lead Co., Inc.
green
2 sentences2006The inconvenience complained of must not be fanciful or such as would affect only one of a fastidious taste, but it should be such as would affect an ordinary reasonable man." In Borland v. Sanders Lead Co. , 369 So.2d 523 (Ala. 1979), this Court observed that determining whether the invasion of a property interest is a trespass or a nuisance requires an analysis of the interest interfered with. 2000In Borland v. Sanders Lead Co., 369 So.2d 523 (Ala.1979), this Court stated: "Whether an invasion of a property interest is a trespass or a nuisance does not depend upon whether the intruding agent is `tangible' or `intangible.' Instead, an analysis must be made to determine the interest interfered with. | 2 | 2000–2006 |
Lauderdale County Board of Education v. Alexander
green
2 sentences2015Lauderdale County Bd. of Educ. v. Alexander, 269 Ala. 79 , 110 So.2d 911 (1959). 2015Lauderdale County Bd. of Educ. v. Alexander, 269 Ala. 79 , 110 So.2d 911 (1959). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Nunley v. State
neutral
1 sentence2008Injunction is an equitable remedy, see Nunley v. State, 628 So.2d 619 (Ala.1993), that is subject to equitable defenses such as the unclean-hands doctrine. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Shelby Iron Co. v. Greenlea
green
2 sentences2000Shelby Iron Co. v. Greenlea, 184 Ala. 496 , 63 So. 470 (1913). 2000Shelby Iron Co. v. Greenlea, 184 Ala. 496 , 63 So. 470 (1913). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Strickland v. Brust
green
2 sentences1975The power and authority to control streets was made the exclusive prerogative of the city, which created a corresponding and coextensive duty and therefor a civil liability for the consequences of a default therein." (Citations omitted.) In City of Decatur v. Parham, 268 Ala. 585 , 109 So.2d 692 , this court, in replying to the same argument which was made and presented in the instant case, said: "We have consistently adhered to the principle that legislative action is required to make a municipal corporation responsible for personal injuries or death caused by the negligence of its servants, 1975The power and authority to control streets was made the exclusive prerogative of the city, which created a corresponding and coextensive duty and therefor a civil liability for the consequences of a default therein.” (Citations omitted.) In City of Decatur v. Parham, 268 Ala. 585 , 109 So.2d 692 , this court, in replying to the same argument which was made and presented in the instant case, said: “We have consistently adhered to the principle that legislative action is required to make a municipal corporation responsible for personal injuries or death caused by the negligence of its servants, | 1 | 1975–1975 |
City of Decatur v. Parham
green
2 sentences1975The power and authority to control streets was made the exclusive prerogative of the city, which created a corresponding and coextensive duty and therefor a civil liability for the consequences of a default therein." (Citations omitted.) In City of Decatur v. Parham, 268 Ala. 585 , 109 So.2d 692 , this court, in replying to the same argument which was made and presented in the instant case, said: "We have consistently adhered to the principle that legislative action is required to make a municipal corporation responsible for personal injuries or death caused by the negligence of its servants, 1975The power and authority to control streets was made the exclusive prerogative of the city, which created a corresponding and coextensive duty and therefor a civil liability for the consequences of a default therein.” (Citations omitted.) In City of Decatur v. Parham, 268 Ala. 585 , 109 So.2d 692 , this court, in replying to the same argument which was made and presented in the instant case, said: “We have consistently adhered to the principle that legislative action is required to make a municipal corporation responsible for personal injuries or death caused by the negligence of its servants, | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Howell v. City of Dothan
green
2 sentences1944That is to say, is a claim for ‘damages growing out of tort’ within the terms of the statute.” Howell v. City of Dothan, 234 Ala. 158 , 174 So. 624, 628 . 1944That is to say, is a claim for ‘damages growing out of tort’ within the terms of the statute.” Howell v. City of Dothan, 234 Ala. 158 , 174 So. 624, 628 . | 1 | 1944–1944 |
Miller v. Thomas
neutral
1 sentence1912“The acquiescence of plaintiff’s grantor in an act of erection of defendant constituting a nuisance is no defense to plaintiff’s cause of action for an injunction against a continuance of the nuisance.” — 29 Cyc. 1232; Learned v. Castle, 78 Cal. 454 , 18 Pac. 872 , 21 Pac. 11 . | 1 | 1912–1912 |
People v. Otto
neutral
1 sentence1912“The acquiescence of plaintiff’s grantor in an act of erection of defendant constituting a nuisance is no defense to plaintiff’s cause of action for an injunction against a continuance of the nuisance.” — 29 Cyc. 1232; Learned v. Castle, 78 Cal. 454 , 18 Pac. 872 , 21 Pac. 11 . | 1 | 1912–1912 |
Learned v. Castle
green
1 sentence1912“The acquiescence of plaintiff’s grantor in an act of erection of defendant constituting a nuisance is no defense to plaintiff’s cause of action for an injunction against a continuance of the nuisance.” — 29 Cyc. 1232; Learned v. Castle, 78 Cal. 454 , 18 Pac. 872 , 21 Pac. 11 . | 1 | 1912–1912 |
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.