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.
6 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Weinstein v. Bradfordgreen2 sentences2025In Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147 (1975), the Court clarified that the exception applies only when "(1) the challenged action is in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and (2) there is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action again." 423 U.S. at 149 (emphasis added). 2025In Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147 (1975), the Court clarified that the exception applies only when "(1) the challenged action is in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and (2) there is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action again." 423 U.S. at 149 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Daugherty Associates v. Silmongreen2 sentences1990This Court clarified the standard of review of a denial of a Rule 60(b) motion in Ex parte Dowling , 477 So.2d 400 , 403 (Ala. 1985), stating: "A strong presumption of correctness attaches to the trial court's determination of a motion made pursuant to Rule 60(b), and the decision whether to grant or deny the motion is within the sound discretion of the trial judge, and the appellate standard of review is whether the trial court abused its discretion." (Citation omitted.) In Daugherty Associates v. Silmon , 535 So.2d 135 (Ala. 1988), this Court, in reviewing a trial court's denial of a Rule 60 1990Nor can a mistake of law be a basis for granting relief under A.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6)." 535 So.2d at 137 (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Fisher v. State
green
2 sentences2025In doing so, this Court clarified the rule regarding the admissibility of collateral rapes: "The case of Fisher v. State, 57 Ala. App. 310 , 328 So. 2d 311 … ([Ala. Crim. 2025In doing so, this Court clarified the rule regarding the admissibility of collateral rapes: "The case of Fisher v. State, 57 Ala. App. 310 , 328 So. 2d 311 … ([Ala. Crim. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Norfolk Southern Railway Company v. Johnson
green
1 sentence2007We described the circumstances in which a conclusive determination could be made that retaliation is not the sole cause, which determination would entitle the employer to a judgment as a matter of law: "The clear import of our holding in Norfolk Southern [Ry. v. Johnson, 740 So.2d 392 (Ala.1999),] is that where a conclusive determination can be made that retaliation is not the sole basis for the discharge a judgment as a matter of law is appropriate. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Tittle v. Alabama Power Co.
green
2 sentences1995This Court has consistently refused to allow a party to contradict prior testimony in an effort to defeat a motion for summary judgment. [1] In Tittle v. Alabama Power Co., 570 So.2d 601 (Ala. 1990), however, the Court clarified the rule, making it clear that the rule's prohibition applies only to a party and not to a nonparty witness. 1995This Court has consistently refused to allow a party to contradict prior testimony in an effort to defeat a motion for summary judgment. 1 In Tittle v. Alabama Power Co. , 570 So.2d 601 (Ala. 1990), however, the Court clarified the rule, making it clear that the rule's prohibition applies only to a party and not to a nonparty witness. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Phelps v. South Alabama Elec. Co-Op.
green
1 sentence1992In addition, and as required by [cases in which this Court has addressed the question concerning relation back: Phelps v. South Alabama Electric Co-op. , 434 So.2d 234 (Ala. 1983); Columbia Engineering International, Ltd. v. Espey , 429 So.2d 955 (Ala. 1983); Threadgill v. Birmingham Board of Education , 407 So.2d 129 (Ala. 1981); Walden v. Mineral Equip. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
COLUMBIA ENGINEERING INTERN., LTD. v. Espey
green
1 sentence1992In addition, and as required by [cases in which this Court has addressed the question concerning relation back: Phelps v. South Alabama Electric Co-op. , 434 So.2d 234 (Ala. 1983); Columbia Engineering International, Ltd. v. Espey , 429 So.2d 955 (Ala. 1983); Threadgill v. Birmingham Board of Education , 407 So.2d 129 (Ala. 1981); Walden v. Mineral Equip. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Threadgill v. Birmingham Bd. of Ed.
green
1 sentence1992In addition, and as required by [cases in which this Court has addressed the question concerning relation back: Phelps v. South Alabama Electric Co-op. , 434 So.2d 234 (Ala. 1983); Columbia Engineering International, Ltd. v. Espey , 429 So.2d 955 (Ala. 1983); Threadgill v. Birmingham Board of Education , 407 So.2d 129 (Ala. 1981); Walden v. Mineral Equip. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Moorer v. DOSTER CONST. CO., INC.
green
1 sentence1992Thus, in order for a plaintiff to invoke Rule 9(h) and [Rule] 15(c), the plaintiff must at the very least state a cause of action in his complaint against the fictitious party. " (Emphasis added.) See, also Moorer v. Doster Construction Co. , 442 So.2d 97 , 9899 (Ala. 1983), in which the Court clarified the rule of "relation back": "Not knowing [who was responsible for the maintenance of the street at the time her complaint was filed], [the plaintiff] properly included them by naming them fictitiously and describing them by the function they performed. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Ex Parte Dowling
green
1 sentence1990This Court clarified the standard of review of a denial of a Rule 60(b) motion in Ex parte Dowling , 477 So.2d 400 , 403 (Ala. 1985), stating: "A strong presumption of correctness attaches to the trial court's determination of a motion made pursuant to Rule 60(b), and the decision whether to grant or deny the motion is within the sound discretion of the trial judge, and the appellate standard of review is whether the trial court abused its discretion." (Citation omitted.) In Daugherty Associates v. Silmon , 535 So.2d 135 (Ala. 1988), this Court, in reviewing a trial court's denial of a Rule 60 | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.