7 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2007 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Di Carlo v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1990There is no mythical necessity that the case must be decided only in accordance with the truth of words uttered under oath in court.' Judge Learned Hand, in DiCarlo v. United States, 6 F.2d 364, 368 (2d Cir. 1925)." 248 Ga. at 864 , 286 S.E.2d at 722 (emphasis original). 1990There is no mythical necessity that the case must be decided only in accordance with the truth of words uttered under oath in court.' Judge Learned Hand, in DiCarlo v. United States , 6 F.2d 364 , 368 (2d Cir. 1925)." 248 Ga. at 864 , 286 S.E.2d at 722 (emphasis original). | 1 | 1 |
Gibbons v. Stategreen2 sentences1990There is no mythical necessity that the case must be decided only in accordance with the truth of words uttered under oath in court.' Judge Learned Hand, in DiCarlo v. United States , 6 F.2d 364 , 368 (2d Cir. 1925)." 248 Ga. at 864 , 286 S.E.2d at 722 (emphasis original). 1990There is no mythical necessity that the case must be decided only in accordance with the truth of words uttered under oath in court.' Judge Learned Hand, in DiCarlo v. United States , 6 F.2d 364 , 368 (2d Cir. 1925)." 248 Ga. at 864 , 286 S.E.2d at 722 (emphasis original). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. Coker
neutral
2 sentences1993Johnson v. Coker, 281 Ala. 14 , 198 So.2d 299 (1967). 1993Johnson v. Coker, 281 Ala. 14 , 198 So.2d 299 (1967). | 3 | 1980–1993 |
Marsh v. Wenzel
green
2 sentences1999We concluded that Marsh had not been ignorant of Dr. Wenzel's identity, but of her cause of action against him, and that Rule 9(h) excused only ignorance of the identity of a party against whom a cause of action has been stated. 732 So.2d at 988-90 . 1999We concluded that Marsh had not been ignorant of Dr. Wen-zel’s identity, but of her cause of action against him, and that Rule 9(h) excused only ignorance of the identity of a party against whom a cause of action has been stated. 732 So.2d at 988-90 . | 2 | 1999–1999 |
McAlpine v. McAlpine
green
1 sentence2007In McAlpine v. McAlpine, 865 So.2d 438 (Ala.Civ.App.2002), this court reversed a judgment awarding a percentage of retirement benefits on the ground that the percentage related to the future, not the present, value of the benefits in violation of § 30-2-51(b). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.