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 1987–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Chapman v. Goodengreen2 sentences2017We now turn to whether this issue of the automatic suspension provided in § 159 is a question of great public importance. “‘The criteria for applying the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine include the. public nature of the question, the desirability of an authoritative determination for the purpose of guiding public officers, and the likelihood that the question will generally recur.’ However, this ‘exception is construed narrowly ... and a clear showing of each criterion is required to bring a case within its terms.’ ” Chapman v. Gooden, 974 So.2d 972, 989 (Ala. 2007)(internal 2009Actions § 81 (2005))." As the Riley defendants further note, this Court has explained "`the criteria for applying the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine'" as including (1) "the public nature of the question," (2) "the desirability of an authoritative determination for the purpose of guiding public officers," and (3) "the likelihood that the question will generally recur." Riley *76 defendants' opposition, at 10 (quoting Chapman v. Gooden, 974 So.2d 972, 989 (Ala.2007) (quoting in turn 1A C.J.S. | 2 | 4 |
Slawson v. Alabama Forestry Com'ngreen2 sentences2012We note that "[tjhere is a well established exception to the mootness doctrine allowing courts to reach the ultimate issue even if it has become moot 'where “a broad public interest is involved.” ' Slawson v. Alabama Forestry Comm'n, 631 So.2d 953, 957 (Ala.1994) (quoting Payne v. J.T.N., 568 So.2d 830, 831 (Ala.Civ.App.1990)).... " 1 "The criteria for applying the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine include the public nature of the question, the desirability of an authoritative determination for the purpose of guiding public officers, and the likelihood that the question will g 2009This Court, citing the public-interest exception, id., proceeded to address the merits and reversed the summary judgment. 631 So.2d at 959 . | 1 | 3 |
Barber v. Cornerstone Community Outreach, Inc.green2 sentences2025The criteria for applying this exception are "(1) 'the public nature of the question,' (2) 'the desirability of an authoritative determination for the purpose of guiding public officers,' and (3) 'the likelihood that the question will generally recur.' " Barber v. Cornerstone Cmty. Outreach, Inc., 42 So. 3d 65, 75 (Ala. 2009) (quoting Chapman, 974 So. 2d at 989 ) (other citations omitted). 2009The majority states "that there is a clear and pressing need for an authoritative determination as to [whether electronic bingo is legal]." 42 So.3d at 76 . | 1 | 2 |
Payne v. J.T.N.green1 sentence2012We note that "[tjhere is a well established exception to the mootness doctrine allowing courts to reach the ultimate issue even if it has become moot 'where “a broad public interest is involved.” ' Slawson v. Alabama Forestry Comm'n, 631 So.2d 953, 957 (Ala.1994) (quoting Payne v. J.T.N., 568 So.2d 830, 831 (Ala.Civ.App.1990)).... " 1 "The criteria for applying the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine include the public nature of the question, the desirability of an authoritative determination for the purpose of guiding public officers, and the likelihood that the question will g | 1 | 1 |
Graham v. Alabama State Employees Ass'ngreen2 sentences2009Actions § 81 (2005))), and Graham v. Alabama State Employees' Ass'n, 991 So.2d 710, 716 (Ala.Civ.App.2007) (applying the public-interest exception to the mootness doctrine). 2009Actions § 81 (2005))), and Graham v. Alabama State Employees’ Ass’n, 991 So.2d 710, 716 (Ala.Civ.App.2007) (applying the public-interest exception to the mootness doctrine). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McPhillips v. Brodbeck
green
2 sentences2007Such a statute should be strictly construed so that it not be an agency for oppression or misuse. . . .' " 289 Ala. at 154 , 266 So.2d at 598 ." Holland v. City of Alabaster , 624 So.2d at 1378 . 2007Such a statute should be strictly construed so that it not be an agency for oppression or misuse. . . .' " 289 Ala. at 154 , 266 So.2d at 598 ." Holland v. City of Alabaster , 624 So.2d at 1378 . | 2 | 2000–2007 |
In Re Adoption of Walgreen
green
2 sentences2007However, this "exception is construed narrowly . . . and a clear showing of each criterion is required to bring a case within its terms." In re Adoption of Walgreen , 186 Ill.2d 362 , 365 , 238 Ill.Dec. 124 , 710 N.E.2d 1226 , 1227 (1999). 2007However, this "exception is construed narrowly . . . and a clear showing of each criterion is required to bring a case within its terms." In re Adoption of Walgreen , 186 Ill.2d 362 , 365 , 238 Ill.Dec. 124 , 710 N.E.2d 1226 , 1227 (1999). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Holland v. City of Alabaster
neutral
1 sentence2007Such a statute should be strictly construed so that it not be an agency for oppression or misuse. . . .' " 289 Ala. at 154 , 266 So.2d at 598 ." Holland v. City of Alabaster , 624 So.2d at 1378 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Mount Royal Towers, Inc. v. Alabama Bd. of Health
green
2 sentences1987Franklin itself, which established the affected with a public interest test, defined the issue in determining the validity of economic regulation attacked upon constitutional grounds to be `whether the relief intended to be given is of a character appropriate to the existing emergency, and reasonably intended to protect against, or to alleviate, the calamitous conditions prevailing or threatened.' 169 So. at 298 ." 388 So.2d at 1214-15 . 1987Franklin itself, which established the affected with a public interest test, defined the issue in determining the validity of economic regulation attacked upon constitutional grounds to be 'whether the relief intended to be given is of a character appropriate to the existing emergency, and reasonably intended to protect against, or to alleviate, the calamitous conditions prevailing or threatened.' 169 So. at 298 ." 388 So.2d at 1214-15 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Franklin v. State Ex Rel. Alabama State Milk Control Board
green
2 sentences1987Franklin itself, which established the affected with a public interest test, defined the issue in determining the validity of economic regulation attacked upon constitutional grounds to be `whether the relief intended to be given is of a character appropriate to the existing emergency, and reasonably intended to protect against, or to alleviate, the calamitous conditions prevailing or threatened.' 169 So. at 298 ." 388 So.2d at 1214-15 . 1987Franklin itself, which established the affected with a public interest test, defined the issue in determining the validity of economic regulation attacked upon constitutional grounds to be 'whether the relief intended to be given is of a character appropriate to the existing emergency, and reasonably intended to protect against, or to alleviate, the calamitous conditions prevailing or threatened.' 169 So. at 298 ." 388 So.2d at 1214-15 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.