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.
8 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2026 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ex Parte AMI West Alabama General Hosp.green1 sentence2026Hosp., 582 So. 2d 484, 485 (Ala. 1991), but Horton has not presented a legally supported argument that the trial court's decision to withhold a ruling on Horton's motion to compel discovery pending resolution of the motion to dismiss was error. | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Purvisgreen1 sentence2024See, e.g., Ex parte 18 SC-2023-0395 Purvis, 689 So. 2d 794, 795 (Ala. 1996) (granting mandamus review on the denial of a motion to dismiss on immunity grounds); Ex parte Smith, 327 So. 3d 184 , 187 (Ala. 2020) (granting mandamus review on the denial of a summary-judgment motion on immunity grounds). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Anniston HMA, LLC v. Uhakheme
green
2 sentences2025Justice Murdock therefore reiterated that "appellate review of an order granting a motion to dismiss a claim … is not by way of a petition for a writ of mandamus but by an appeal governed by the strictures of Rule 54(b)." Id. 2025Justice Murdock therefore reiterated that "appellate review of an order granting a motion to dismiss a claim … is not by way of a petition for a writ of mandamus but by an appeal governed by the strictures of Rule 54(b)." Id. | 3 | 2025–2025 |
Ex Parte State Ex Rel. Attorney General
green
2 sentences2024The State of Alabama then filed a motion to dismiss the claim asserted by the third party, arguing that his claim was "in effect a suit against the State of Alabama in violation of section 14 of the Constitution of Alabama." 245 Ala. at 195 , 16 So. 2d at 188 . 2024The State of Alabama then filed a motion to dismiss the claim asserted by the third party, arguing that his claim was "in effect a suit against the State of Alabama in violation of section 14 of the Constitution of Alabama." 245 Ala. at 195 , 16 So. 2d at 188 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Strickland v. National Gypsum Co.
green
1 sentence1983Strickland v. National Gypsum Co., 348 So.2d 497 (Ala.Civ.App.1977). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Hales v. First Nat. Bank of Mobile
green
1 sentence1983The gist of his argument is focused on language in rule 12 (b), A.R.Civ.P., which states: "If, on a motion asserting the defense numbered (6) to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56, and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56." Williams further cites Hales v. First National Bank , 380 So.2d 797 (Ala | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.