rejection doctrine in Alabama

2008Cos., 22 Kan.

2008Cos., 22 Kan.

2002This case is not the first occasion to deal with the effect of overly broad language in Dean v. Myers, 466 So.2d 952 (Ala.1985).

2002This case is not the first occasion to deal with the effect of overly broad language in Dean v. Myers , 466 So.2d 952 (Ala. 1985).

1997The court, relying upon State Personnel Dep’t v. Mays, 624 So.2d 194 (Ala.Civ.App.1993), reversed the Board’s decision and held that the Board’s rejection of the hearing officer’s findings “was unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious,” and concluded that the Board could only point to “some evidence in the record to support ADEM’s position.” (Emphasis in original.) ADEM appeals, contending: (1) that the circuit court erroneously substituted its judgment for that of the Board; and (2) that the court erred when it relied on Mays, supra. Our review is governed by § 41-22-20(k), Ala.Code 1975.

1997The court, relying upon State Personnel Dep’t v. Mays, 624 So.2d 194 (Ala.Civ.App.1993), reversed the Board’s decision and held that the Board’s rejection of the hearing officer’s findings “was unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious,” and concluded that the Board could only point to “some evidence in the record to support ADEM’s position.” (Emphasis in original.) ADEM appeals, contending: (1) that the circuit court erroneously substituted its judgment for that of the Board; and (2) that the court erred when it relied on Mays, supra. Our review is governed by § 41-22-20(k), Ala.Code 1975.

1987In Parker v. Bowen, 788 F.2d 1512 (11th Cir.1986), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals recognized that although the Social Security Appeals Council had the power to reject the credibility findings of the administrative law judge who heard evidence in the case, “a federal court will consider the record as a whole, including, inter alia, the administrative law judge’s credibility findings and the reasons those findings were rejected by the Appeals Council.” Id., at 1521 .

1987In Parker v. Bowen, 788 F.2d 1512 (11th Cir.1986), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals recognized that although the Social Security Appeals Council had the power to reject the credibility findings of the administrative law judge who heard evidence in the case, “a federal court will consider the record as a whole, including, inter alia, the administrative law judge’s credibility findings and the reasons those findings were rejected by the Appeals Council.” Id., at 1521 .

1973See also later cases collected under 5 Ala.Dig., Contracts 95, and 96. [7] Our somewhat summary handling of this issue is not to be construed as a rejection of the doctrine of economic duress and business compulsion; we simply defer fuller treatment to a more appropriate case. [8] See Motor Equipment Co. v. McLaughlin, 156 Kan. 258 , 133 P.2d 149 (1943); and Averill Machinery Co. v. Taylor, 70 Mont. 70 , 223 P. 918 (1923). [9] This is not to say that the doctrine of ratification (or acquiescence) has no field of operation generally as to a defense of vagueness.

1973See also later cases collected under 5 Ala.Dig., Contracts 95, and 96. [7] Our somewhat summary handling of this issue is not to be construed as a rejection of the doctrine of economic duress and business compulsion; we simply defer fuller treatment to a more appropriate case. [8] See Motor Equipment Co. v. McLaughlin, 156 Kan. 258 , 133 P.2d 149 (1943); and Averill Machinery Co. v. Taylor, 70 Mont. 70 , 223 P. 918 (1923). [9] This is not to say that the doctrine of ratification (or acquiescence) has no field of operation generally as to a defense of vagueness.

1870In the case of Cawthorne v. Weisinger, ( 6 Ala. 714 ,) it is ruled, that a writ of error can not be prosecuted, upon the settlement of an insolvent estate, until a final decree is made; but any creditor who may conceive himself injured by a rejection of his claim, may, by certiorari, remove the record into the circuit court, and have the question reconsidered ; and for the improper admission of a claim, the remaining creditors may also seek redress in the same way.

1852The cases of Phelan v. Phelan, 13 Ala. 679 , and Middleton v. Maul, 16 Ala. 479 , are conclusive upon this point.

1852The cases of Phelan v. Phelan, 13 Ala. 679 , and Middleton v. Maul, 16 Ala. 479 , are conclusive upon this point.

1847The administrator, or a creditor, may require the claim thus to be verified; but if no such exception is taken, the want of an affidavit will not authorize its rejection; and it may be made after objections are filed to the claim. [Shortridge v. Easly, 1 Ala. R. 520; Brown & Co. v. Easley, Id. 564 .] In the case at bar, the only question is, whether the filing of an exact copy of a note, or other writing, evidencing a claim against the estate, verified by affidavit, is a sufficient compliance with the statute, and is it competent after objection made, to produce the original ?