52 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2026 7 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 |
|---|---|---|
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Skeltongreen2 sentences2026Co. v. Skelton, 675 So. 2d 377, 379 (Ala. 1996). 2003In Allstate Insurance Co. v. Skelton , 675 So.2d 377 (Ala. 1996), this Court stated: "When a judge in a nonjury case hears oral testimony, a judgment based on findings of fact based on that testimony will be presumed correct and will not be disturbed on appeal except for a plain and palpable error. | 33 | 44 |
Smith v. Ann Muchiagreen2 sentences2025Our ore tenus standard of review is well settled. " 'When a judge in a nonjury case hears oral testimony, a judgment based on findings of fact based on that testimony will be presumed correct and will not be disturbed on appeal except for a plain and palpable error.' " Smith v. Muchia, 854 So. 2d 85, 92 (Ala. 2003) (quoting Allstate Ins. 2025Because Haag had had notice that Wilson was building on his property and had done nothing about it, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, granting them "a permanent constructive/implied easement as to all existing encroachments." Haag appealed the circuit court's decision. 1 III. 1" ' " When a judge in a nonjury case hears oral testimony, a judgment based on findings of fact based on that testimony will be presumed correct and will not be disturbed on appeal except for a plain and palpable error." ' " Yeager v. Lucy, 998 So. 2d 460, 462 (Ala. 2008) (quoting Smith v. Muchia, 854 So. 2d 85 | 28 | 37 |
Hall v. Mazzonegreen2 sentences2025Co. v. Skelton, 675 So. 2d 377, 379 (Ala. 1996)). " ' " 'The ore tenus rule is grounded upon the principle that when the trial court hears oral testimony it has an opportunity to evaluate the demeanor and credibility of witnesses.' Hall v. Mazzone, 486 So. 2d 408, 410 (Ala. 1986). 2024Co. v. Skelton, 675 So. 2d 377, 379 (Ala. 1996)). " ' " 'The ore tenus rule is grounded upon the principle that when the trial court hears oral testimony it has an opportunity to evaluate the demeanor and credibility of witnesses.' Hall v. Mazzone, 486 So. 2d 408, 410 (Ala. 1986). | 17 | 21 |
First Nat. Bank of Mobile v. Duckworthgreen2 sentences2013Griggs v. Driftwood Landing, Inc., 620 So.2d 582 (Ala.1993); First National Bank of Mobile v. Duckworth, 502 So.2d 709 (Ala.1987). 2013Co. v. Skelton, 675 So.2d 377, 379 (Ala.1996)); see also First Nat’l Bank of Mobile v. Duckworth, 502 So.2d 709 (Ala.1987). | 7 | 11 |
Kennedy v. Boles Investments, Inc.green2 sentences2023Standard of Review " ' "When a judge in a nonjury case hears oral testimony, a judgment based on findings of fact based on that testimony will be presumed correct and will not be disturbed on appeal except for a plain and palpable error." ' " Kennedy v. Boles Invs., Inc., 53 So. 3d 60, 67-68 (Ala. 2010) 4 SC-2022-0821 (citations omitted). 2016Ordinarily, “ “[w]hen a judge in a nonjury case hears oral testimony, a judgment based on findings of fact based on that testimony will be presumed correct and will not be disturbed on appeal except for a plain and palpable error.” ’ ” Kennedy v. Boles Invs., Inc., 53 So.3d 60, 67-68 (Ala.2010) (quoting Smith v. Muchia, 854 So.2d 85, 92 (Ala.2003), quoting in turn Allstate Ins. | 3 | 3 |
Yeager v. Lucygreen1 sentence2025Because Haag had had notice that Wilson was building on his property and had done nothing about it, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, granting them "a permanent constructive/implied easement as to all existing encroachments." Haag appealed the circuit court's decision. 1 III. 1" ' " When a judge in a nonjury case hears oral testimony, a judgment based on findings of fact based on that testimony will be presumed correct and will not be disturbed on appeal except for a plain and palpable error." ' " Yeager v. Lucy, 998 So. 2d 460, 462 (Ala. 2008) (quoting Smith v. Muchia, 854 So. 2d 85 | 1 | 1 |
Shewmake v. Estate of Shewmakegreen1 sentence2012See also Shewmake v. Estate of Shewmalce, 940 So.2d 260, 264 (AIa.2006). 4 “The evidence in this case was presented to the trial judge in a bench trial. ‘ “When a judge in a nonjury case hears oral testimony, a judgment based on findings of fact based on that testimony will be presumed correct and will not be disturbed on appeal except for a plain and palpable error.” ’ Smith v. Muchia, 854 So.2d 85, 92 (Ala.2003) (quoting Allstate his. | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Board of Zoning Adjustmentgreen2 sentences2007Co. v. Skelton , 675 So.2d 377 , 379 (Ala. 1996). "[H]owever, that presumption has no application when the trial court is shown to have improperly applied the law to the facts." Ex parte Board of Zoning Adjustment of Mobile , 636 So.2d 415 , 417 (Ala. 1994). 2007Co. v. Skelton, 675 So.2d 377, 379 (Ala.1996). "[H]owever, that presumption has no application when the trial court is shown to have improperly applied the law to the facts." Ex parte Board of Zoning Adjustment of Mobile, 636 So.2d 415, 417 (Ala. 1994). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Griggs v. Driftwood Landing, Inc.
green
2 sentences2013Griggs v. Driftwood Landing, Inc., 620 So.2d 582 (Ala.1993); First National Bank of Mobile v. Duckworth, 502 So.2d 709 (Ala.1987). 2003Griggs v. Driftwood Landing, Inc. , 620 So.2d 582 (Ala. 1993); First National Bank of Mobile v. Duckworth , 502 So.2d 709 (Ala. 1987). | 4 | 1995–2013 |
Wallace v. JEFFERSON CTY. DEPT. OF PENSIONS & SECURITY
green
1 sentence1991Wallace v. Jefferson County Dep’t of Pensions & Sec., 501 So.2d 473 (Ala.Civ.App.1986), cert. quashed, (Ala.1987). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
General Motors Corp. v. Edwards
green
1 sentence1991We presume that a trial court’s ruling on the issue of damages is correct and we will not disturb such a ruling unless we find it to be a plain and palpable error.” In Alabama Farm Bureau, three Justices dissented because this Court failed to address the excessiveness issue, just as three Justices had dissented when a plurality of this Court had refused to address the issue of the trial court’s remittitur in General Motors Corp. v. Edwards, supra. Two Justices were recused in Alabama Farm Bureau, just as two Justices were recused in General Motors Corp. v. Edwards. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Vest v. Gay
green
2 sentences1986Vest v. Gay, 275 Ala. 286 , 154 So.2d 297 (1963). 1986Vest v. Gay, 275 Ala. 286 , 154 So.2d 297 (1963). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Fields v. Parker
green
2 sentences1983Upon examination of the entire record, and granting the presumption to which its action is entitled, it cannot be stated that the trial court's denial of a new trial conditioned on a remittitur of $1,983,869 was a plain and palpable error and manifest abuse of discretion, "regardless of [this Court's] beliefs regarding any sum to which the plaintiff might have been entitled." Fields v. Parker, supra, 361 So.2d at 361 . 1983Upon examination of the entire record, and granting the presumption to which its action is entitled, it cannot be stated that the trial court's denial of a new trial conditioned on a remittitur of $1,983,869 was a plain and palpable error and manifest abuse of discretion, "regardless of [this Court's] beliefs regarding any sum to which the plaintiff might have been entitled." Fields v. Parker, supra , 361 So.2d at 361 . | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.