7 Alabama opinions name it 3 courts 1964–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Collins v. Alabama Department of Correctionsgreen2 sentences2025See, e.g., Ex parte Collins, 84 So. 3d 48, 53 (Ala. 2010) ("[T]he verification of the petition does not limit the power of the circuit court to adjudicate the petition. ... [I]f the respondent does not properly raise the verification requirement in the circuit court, that issue is waived."). 2017See Ex parte Collins , 84 So.3d 48 , 53 (Ala. 2010) ("We hold that the verification requirement in § 6-6-640(a), Ala. Code 1975, for petitions for writs of ... certiorari ... is purely a procedural requirement, not a jurisdictional requirement, because the verification of the petition does not limit the power of the circuit court to adjudicate the petition. ... [I]f the respondent does not properly raise the verification requirement in the circuit court, that issue is waived."). | 2 | 2 |
Ex Parte Johnsongreen2 sentences2010See Ex parte Johnson, 485 So.2d 1098, 1106 (Ala.1986) ("[W]e hold that the verification requirement of § 6-6-640 does not apply as to mandamus petitions governed by the Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure...."). . 2008Thus, we hold that the verification requirement of § 6-6-640 does not apply as to mandamus petitions governed by the Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure, and the petition is not due to be dismissed because of petitioner's failure to have it verified." 485 So.2d at 1105-06 (emphasis added). | 2 | 2 |
Ex Parte Terrygreen1 sentence2026See Hoff v. Estate of Kidd, 382 So. 3d 569 , 572 (Ala. 2022) (discussing the verification requirement of § 12-11-41 in jurisdictional 12 SC-2025-0804 terms); Ex parte Terry, 957 So. 2d 455, 458 (Ala. 2006) (" 'We would say a petition using the statutory words would be sufficient, if the facts support them in their legal sense. | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte McLendongreen2 sentences2026Being an ex parte proceeding, it is the existence of these facts presented in statutory way that gives the court jurisdiction.' [Ex parte McLendon,] 212 Ala. [403,] 405, 102 So. [696,] 698 [(1924)]."); Ex parte McLendon, 212 Ala. 403, 405 , 102 So. 696, 698 (1924); Dooley v. Dooley, 205 Ala. 281, 282 , 87 So. 545, 546 (1921) ("[T]he bill (or petition) was not sworn to nor does it contain an averment the equivalent of the requirement of the [removal] statute that testator's estate can be better administered in the circuit court in equity, and for this reason the decree cannot be referred to tha 2026Being an ex parte proceeding, it is the existence of these facts presented in statutory way that gives the court jurisdiction.' [Ex parte McLendon,] 212 Ala. [403,] 405, 102 So. [696,] 698 [(1924)]."); Ex parte McLendon, 212 Ala. 403, 405 , 102 So. 696, 698 (1924); Dooley v. Dooley, 205 Ala. 281, 282 , 87 So. 545, 546 (1921) ("[T]he bill (or petition) was not sworn to nor does it contain an averment the equivalent of the requirement of the [removal] statute that testator's estate can be better administered in the circuit court in equity, and for this reason the decree cannot be referred to tha | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Greengreen2 sentences2026Being an ex parte proceeding, it is the existence of these facts presented in statutory way that gives the court jurisdiction.' [Ex parte McLendon,] 212 Ala. [403,] 405, 102 So. [696,] 698 [(1924)]."); Ex parte McLendon, 212 Ala. 403, 405 , 102 So. 696, 698 (1924); Dooley v. Dooley, 205 Ala. 281, 282 , 87 So. 545, 546 (1921) ("[T]he bill (or petition) was not sworn to nor does it contain an averment the equivalent of the requirement of the [removal] statute that testator's estate can be better administered in the circuit court in equity, and for this reason the decree cannot be referred to tha 2026Being an ex parte proceeding, it is the existence of these facts presented in statutory way that gives the court jurisdiction.' [Ex parte McLendon,] 212 Ala. [403,] 405, 102 So. [696,] 698 [(1924)]."); Ex parte McLendon, 212 Ala. 403, 405 , 102 So. 696, 698 (1924); Dooley v. Dooley, 205 Ala. 281, 282 , 87 So. 545, 546 (1921) ("[T]he bill (or petition) was not sworn to nor does it contain an averment the equivalent of the requirement of the [removal] statute that testator's estate can be better administered in the circuit court in equity, and for this reason the decree cannot be referred to tha | 1 | 1 |
Dooley v. Dooleygreen2 sentences2026Being an ex parte proceeding, it is the existence of these facts presented in statutory way that gives the court jurisdiction.' [Ex parte McLendon,] 212 Ala. [403,] 405, 102 So. [696,] 698 [(1924)]."); Ex parte McLendon, 212 Ala. 403, 405 , 102 So. 696, 698 (1924); Dooley v. Dooley, 205 Ala. 281, 282 , 87 So. 545, 546 (1921) ("[T]he bill (or petition) was not sworn to nor does it contain an averment the equivalent of the requirement of the [removal] statute that testator's estate can be better administered in the circuit court in equity, and for this reason the decree cannot be referred to tha 2026Being an ex parte proceeding, it is the existence of these facts presented in statutory way that gives the court jurisdiction.' [Ex parte McLendon,] 212 Ala. [403,] 405, 102 So. [696,] 698 [(1924)]."); Ex parte McLendon, 212 Ala. 403, 405 , 102 So. 696, 698 (1924); Dooley v. Dooley, 205 Ala. 281, 282 , 87 So. 545, 546 (1921) ("[T]he bill (or petition) was not sworn to nor does it contain an averment the equivalent of the requirement of the [removal] statute that testator's estate can be better administered in the circuit court in equity, and for this reason the decree cannot be referred to tha | 1 | 1 |
Waite v. Waitegreen1 sentence2010See generally Ex parte V.S., 918 So.2d 908, 912 (Ala.2005) (“It is well settled that lack of subject-matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time by the parties or by the court ex mero motu.”); Waite v. Waite, 959 So.2d 610, 612-13 (Ala.2006) (holding that affirmative defenses that are not jurisdictional in nature may not be raised sua sponte by an appellate court). | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Vsgreen1 sentence2010See generally Ex parte V.S., 918 So.2d 908, 912 (Ala.2005) (“It is well settled that lack of subject-matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time by the parties or by the court ex mero motu.”); Waite v. Waite, 959 So.2d 610, 612-13 (Ala.2006) (holding that affirmative defenses that are not jurisdictional in nature may not be raised sua sponte by an appellate court). | 1 | 1 |
Horton Homes, Inc. v. Shanerred1 sentence2008Contrary to the assertion in footnote 3 of the main opinion, I in no way suggest that the reference to Rule 4(a) in the table in Appendix III serves as a "funnel" for the provisions of Rule 4(a) or, for that matter, any other rule of appellate procedure or any rule of civil procedure that by its terms became applicable to appeals of arbitration awards upon the enactment of those respective rules in 1975 and in 1973, respectively. 999 So.2d at 468. | 1 | 1 |
Carpenter v. Stategreen2 sentences2005See Carpenter v. State, 782 So.2d 848 (Ala. Crim.App.2000), and Rule 81, Ala.R.Civ.P. [5] I also do not agree with the main opinion's attempt to support its conclusion by citing the law regarding petitions for writs of habeas corpus and writs of error coram nobis and the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure. [6] It also appears that the courts have sometimes used these terms when the more appropriate term would be "authority." [7] We also noted that McWilliams should have filed his petition in the Montgomery Circuit Court, where he was convicted, because his claims were cognizable in a Rule 32 pet 2005See Carpenter v. State , 782 So.2d 848 (Ala.Crim.App. 2000), and Rule 81, Ala.R.Civ.P. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Smith v. State
green
2 sentences2010Collins contends that the Court of Criminal Appeals’ implicit holding that the verification requirement in § 6-6-640(a), Ala. Code 1975, is a jurisdictional requirement conflicts with that court’s decision in Smith v. State, 918 So.2d 141 (Ala.Crim.App.2005). 2010That court explained that “the verification requirement is more appropriately a matter of form, the omission or inadequacy of which amounts to an irregularity that is subject to cure by a proper and timely amendment, and may be waived by the State if not properly raised.” Smith, 918 So.2d at 153 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Ex Parte St. John
green
2 sentences2005John, 805 So.2d 684 (Ala.2001); and Goldsmith v. State, 709 So.2d 1352 (Ala. Crim.App.1997), this Court in Thornton concluded that the Supreme Court intended the verification requirement to be a jurisdictional prerequisite, in the same way as the payment of the filing fee or the alternative granting of in forma pauperis status. 2005John , 805 So.2d 684 (Ala. 2001); and Goldsmith v. State , 709 So.2d 1352 (Ala.Crim.App. 1997), this Court in Thornton concluded that the Supreme Court intended the verification requirement to be a jurisdictional prerequisite, in the same way as the payment of the filing fee or the alternative granting of in forma pauperis status. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Goldsmith v. State
green
2 sentences2005John, 805 So.2d 684 (Ala.2001); and Goldsmith v. State, 709 So.2d 1352 (Ala. Crim.App.1997), this Court in Thornton concluded that the Supreme Court intended the verification requirement to be a jurisdictional prerequisite, in the same way as the payment of the filing fee or the alternative granting of in forma pauperis status. 2005John , 805 So.2d 684 (Ala. 2001); and Goldsmith v. State , 709 So.2d 1352 (Ala.Crim.App. 1997), this Court in Thornton concluded that the Supreme Court intended the verification requirement to be a jurisdictional prerequisite, in the same way as the payment of the filing fee or the alternative granting of in forma pauperis status. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Burgess & Co. v. Martin
green
1 sentence1964The reason why such an attempted verification is no verification at all is clearly stated in Burgess & Company v. Martin, 111 Ala. 656 , 20 So. 506 . | 1 | 1964–1964 |
City of Anniston v. Rosser
green
2 sentences1964City of Anniston v. Rosser, 275 Ala. 659 , 158 So.2d 99 . 1964City of Anniston v. Rosser, 275 Ala. 659 , 158 So.2d 99 . | 1 | 1964–1964 |
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.