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 1 courts 1916–2016 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 Holtgreen2 sentences2012See also Ex parte Holt, 599 So.2d 12, 14-15 (Ala.1992) (noting that ‘ “ ‘[t]he basically equitable nature of an action ... for an accounting is not changed by the inclusion of a claim for damages. 2010See also Ex parte Holt, 599 So.2d 12, 14-15 (Ala.1992) (noting that “ ‘ “[t]he basically equitable nature of an action ... for an accounting is not changed by the inclusion of a claim for damages. | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co.
green
2 sentences2016Rather, it means that an arbitration or forum-selection clause in a contract is not enforceable if the inclusion of that clause in the contract was the product of fraud or coercion.’ “417 U.S. at 519 n. 14, 94 S.Ct. 2449 . 2016Rather, it means that an arbitration or forum-selection clause in a contract is not enforceable if the inclusion of that clause in the contract was the product of fraud or coercion.’ “417 U.S. at 519 n. 14, 94 S.Ct. 2449 . | 3 | 2003–2016 |
cluster 755745
green
2 sentences2016The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Lipcon v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, 148 F.3d 1285 , 1296 (11th Cir. 1998), applied the Scherk holding, stating, ‘By requiring the plaintiff specifically to allege that the choice clause itself was included in the contract due to fraud in order to succeed in a claim that the choice is unenforceable, courts may ensure that more general claims of fraud will be litigated in the chosen forum, in accordance with the contractual expectations of the parties.’ “Thus, the proper inquiry is whether ‘the forum-selection clause is the re 2003The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Lipcon v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, 148 F.3d 1285 , 1296 (11th Cir.1998), applied the Scherk holding, stating, “By requiring the plaintiff specifically to allege that the choice clause itself was included in the contract due to fraud in order to succeed in a claim that the choice is unenforceable, courts may ensure that more general claims of fraud will be litigated in the chosen forum, in accordance with the contractual expectations of the parties.” Thus, the proper inquiry is whether the forum-selection clause is the resul | 3 | 2003–2016 |
Alabama & Georgia Lumber Co. v. Tisdale
neutral
1 sentence1916Such being the case, the time limit dates from the period when the last item was furnished (March 30, 1914), and both the filing the claim in the probate office (May 16, 1914) and the bringing of the suit (September 25, 1914) were well within the limit. — Code 1907, §§ 4758, 4777. (5, 6) The inclusion in the claim filed of items furnished the respondent on October 17, and 24, 1913, for material not used in this building, amounting in the aggregate to something over $56 — there being no indication of any fraud on the part of the complainant, nor of any intentional áct on its part to claim more | 1 | 1916–1916 |
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.