7 Alabama opinions name it 3 courts 2002–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ex Parte AMPgreen1 sentence2024In that order, the juvenile court explained that " the intention of the parties, as reflected by the agreement on August 3, 2023, which was the basis for this Court's August 9, 2023, order was for the April 29, 2024, hearing to be an adjudication hearing for the purposes of determining a final disposition of custody." The juvenile court also stated that "[t]he fact that the August 9, 2023, order was styled in a way that would normally indicate, in this jurisdiction, a final determination of custody, was unintentional and in error." The custodians then filed this timely petition for the writ of | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Integon Corp.green1 sentence2024In that order, the juvenile court explained that " the intention of the parties, as reflected by the agreement on August 3, 2023, which was the basis for this Court's August 9, 2023, order was for the April 29, 2024, hearing to be an adjudication hearing for the purposes of determining a final disposition of custody." The juvenile court also stated that "[t]he fact that the August 9, 2023, order was styled in a way that would normally indicate, in this jurisdiction, a final determination of custody, was unintentional and in error." The custodians then filed this timely petition for the writ of | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Perfection Siding, Inc.green1 sentence2024In that order, the juvenile court explained that " the intention of the parties, as reflected by the agreement on August 3, 2023, which was the basis for this Court's August 9, 2023, order was for the April 29, 2024, hearing to be an adjudication hearing for the purposes of determining a final disposition of custody." The juvenile court also stated that "[t]he fact that the August 9, 2023, order was styled in a way that would normally indicate, in this jurisdiction, a final determination of custody, was unintentional and in error." The custodians then filed this timely petition for the writ of | 1 | 1 |
Jean S. Gray v. Larry O. Bain and Sharon Johnstongreen1 sentence2024In that order, the juvenile court explained that " the intention of the parties, as reflected by the agreement on August 3, 2023, which was the basis for this Court's August 9, 2023, order was for the April 29, 2024, hearing to be an adjudication hearing for the purposes of determining a final disposition of custody." The juvenile court also stated that "[t]he fact that the August 9, 2023, order was styled in a way that would normally indicate, in this jurisdiction, a final determination of custody, was unintentional and in error." The custodians then filed this timely petition for the writ of | 1 | 1 |
Baker v. Bennettgreen1 sentence2015In short, as this Court stated in Baker v. Bennett, 644 So.2d 901, 903 (Ala.1994): “Rule 54(b) allows the court to direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, of the claims or parties upon an express determination that- there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment. | 1 | 1 |
Griffin v. Bozemangreen2 sentences2007In order for the judgment in favor of Bolinger to exonerate these defendants, it must be made to appear that the judgment for him was based on the ground that there was no such trespass committed on [the] land [claimed by the individual suing the defendants], because it was there held by the court and jury that the land was not that of [the individual], but of Bolinger; or that he was then in the adverse possession of it, rather than that the verdict was on some personal defense , as that Bolinger did not participate in the trespass." Griffin , 234 Ala. at 139 , 173 So. at 859-60 (emphasis add 2007In order for the judgment in favor of Bolinger to exonerate these defendants, it must be made to appear that the judgment for him was based on the ground that there was no such trespass committed on [the] land [claimed by the individual suing the defendants], because it was there held by the court and jury that the land was not that of [the individual], but of Bolinger; or that he was then in the adverse possession of it, rather than that the verdict was on some personal defense , as that Bolinger did not participate in the trespass." Griffin , 234 Ala. at 139 , 173 So. at 859-60 (emphasis add | 1 | 1 |
Daniels v. National Fire Insurance Co. of Hartfordgreen1 sentence2004Co. of Hartford, 394 So.2d 683, 683-84 (La.Ct.App.1981): "`The legislative limit upon admission protects the juvenile from the eyes of persons whose only interest is curiosity, but not persons whose interests are "proper." A parent whose child has been killed, accidentally or intentionally, has a proper interest, if anyone does, in observing the adjudication hearing. | 1 | 1 |
Sussex Drug Products v. Kanasco, Ltd.green1 sentence2002Moreover, if we were to follow the guidance of Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Wetzel , 424 U.S. 737 , 743 n. 4 (1976), in which the Supreme Court stated, as quoted in Sussex Drug Prods ., 920 F.2d at 1154, that "[i]t is sufficient to recognize that a complaint asserting only one legal right, even if seeking multiple remedies for the alleged violation of that right, states a single claim for relief," we would also conclude that the trial court had failed to make a complete adjudication on a claim for relief for purposes of Rule 54(b) certification. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Eb Investments v. Pavilion Development, 1091666 (Ala. 8-5-2011)
green
1 sentence2013Id. (emphasis added). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Teague v. Lane
green
2 sentences2012See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(l)-(d)(2) ("An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim ... resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence pres 2012See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(l)-(d)(2) ("An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim ... resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence pres | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Wetzel
green
1 sentence2002Moreover, if we were to follow the guidance of Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Wetzel , 424 U.S. 737 , 743 n. 4 (1976), in which the Supreme Court stated, as quoted in Sussex Drug Prods ., 920 F.2d at 1154, that "[i]t is sufficient to recognize that a complaint asserting only one legal right, even if seeking multiple remedies for the alleged violation of that right, states a single claim for relief," we would also conclude that the trial court had failed to make a complete adjudication on a claim for relief for purposes of Rule 54(b) certification. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.