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.
7 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ex Parte Gatesgreen2 sentences2002See Ex parte Gates, 675 So.2d 371 (Ala.1996); and see Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis, Inc. v. McNeal, 143 Ga.App. 579 , 239 S.E.2d 401 (1977) (holding that an employee— an account representative—of Paine, Webber, who was not a signatory to the contract containing the arbitration agreement, was entitled to the benefit of that agreement). 1996See Ex parte Gates, 675 So.2d 371 (Ala.1996); and see Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis, Inc. v. McNeal, 143 Ga.App. 579 , 239 S.E.2d 401 (1977) (holding that an employee — an account representative — of Paine, Webber, who was not a signatory to the contract containing the arbitration agreement, was . entitled to the benefit of that agreement). | 3 | 3 |
Smith v. Wendy's of the South, Inc.green1 sentence1989Smith v. Wendy’s of the South, Inc., 503 So.2d 843, 844 (Ala.1987).” Eidson v. Olin Corp., 527 So.2d 1283, 1284 (Ala.1988). | 1 | 1 |
Eidson v. Olin Corp.green1 sentence1989Smith v. Wendy’s of the South, Inc., 503 So.2d 843, 844 (Ala.1987).” Eidson v. Olin Corp., 527 So.2d 1283, 1284 (Ala.1988). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis, Inc. v. McNeal
green
2 sentences2002See Ex parte Gates, 675 So.2d 371 (Ala.1996); and see Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis, Inc. v. McNeal, 143 Ga.App. 579 , 239 S.E.2d 401 (1977) (holding that an employee— an account representative—of Paine, Webber, who was not a signatory to the contract containing the arbitration agreement, was entitled to the benefit of that agreement). 2002See Ex parte Gates, 675 So.2d 371 (Ala.1996); and see Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis, Inc. v. McNeal, 143 Ga.App. 579 , 239 S.E.2d 401 (1977) (holding that an employee— an account representative—of Paine, Webber, who was not a signatory to the contract containing the arbitration agreement, was entitled to the benefit of that agreement). | 3 | 1996–2002 |
Hayes v. Apperson
green
1 sentence2018With regard to the nieces' claim that Pitts was mentally incompetent at the time he executed the November 2010 will, the trial court held that the nieces had "failed to meet their burden of demonstrating Mr. Pitts's lack of testamentary capacity." The trial court similarly held that the nieces had failed to put forth substantial evidence of their undue-influence claim, explaining: "[O]ne of the prerequisites for a presumption of undue influence is 'undue activity by the beneficiary in procuring the execution of the will.' *29 Pirtle v. Tucker , 960 So.2d 620 , 628 (Ala. 2006), citing Hayes v. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Pirtle v. Tucker
green
1 sentence2018With regard to the nieces' claim that Pitts was mentally incompetent at the time he executed the November 2010 will, the trial court held that the nieces had "failed to meet their burden of demonstrating Mr. Pitts's lack of testamentary capacity." The trial court similarly held that the nieces had failed to put forth substantial evidence of their undue-influence claim, explaining: "[O]ne of the prerequisites for a presumption of undue influence is 'undue activity by the beneficiary in procuring the execution of the will.' *29 Pirtle v. Tucker , 960 So.2d 620 , 628 (Ala. 2006), citing Hayes v. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Ex Parte Houston County Sheriff Glover
green
1 sentence2011Ex parte Glover, 801 So.2d at 6 ; Ex parte Integon Corp., 672 So.2d at 499 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Ex Parte Integon Corp.
green
1 sentence2011Ex parte Glover, 801 So.2d at 6 ; Ex parte Integon Corp., 672 So.2d at 499 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Ex Parte Gray
green
1 sentence2004Id. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.