party in interest principle in Alabama

2014Rule 17 requires that “[ejvery action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.” (Emphasis added.) This Court has stated that “ ‘the real party in interest principle is a means to identify the person who possesses the right sought to be enforced.’ ” State v. Property at 2018 Rainbow Drive, 740 So.2d 1025, 1027 (Ala.1999) (quoting Dennis v. Magic City Dodge, Inc., 524 So.2d 616, 618 (Ala.1988)).

2014Rule 17 requires that "[e]very action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest." (Emphasis added.) This Court has stated that "'the real party in interest principle is a means to identify the person who possesses the right sought to be enforced.'" State v. Property at 2018 Rainbow Drive, 740 So. 2d 1025, 1027 (Ala. 1999)(quoting Dennis v. Magic City Dodge, Inc., 524 So. 2d 616, 618 (Ala. 1988)).

2024See Dennis v. Magic City Dodge, Inc., 524 So. 2d 616, 618 (Ala. 1988) (explaining that ' "the real party in interest principle is a means to identify the person who possesses the right sought to be enforced" ' (quoting 6 C.

2014Rule 17 requires that “[ejvery action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.” (Emphasis added.) This Court has stated that “ ‘the real party in interest principle is a means to identify the person who possesses the right sought to be enforced.’ ” State v. Property at 2018 Rainbow Drive, 740 So.2d 1025, 1027 (Ala.1999) (quoting Dennis v. Magic City Dodge, Inc., 524 So.2d 616, 618 (Ala.1988)).

2009This argument confuses the standing issue with the issue whether M N is the real party in interest. *Page 25 Although the standing requirement serves to ensure that the party making a claim has, in fact, suffered an "'"injury . . . to a legally protected right,"'" State v. Property at 2018 Rainbow Drive , 740 So.2d 1025 , 1027 (Ala. 1999) (quoting Romer v. Board of County Comm'rs of the County of Pueblo , 956 P.2d 566 , 581 (Colo. 1998) (emphasis omitted)), "the real party in interest principle is a means to identify the person who possesses the right sought to be enforced." Charles Alan Wrigh

2009Although the standing requirement serves to ensure that the party making a claim has, in fact, suffered an “ ‘ “injury ... to a legally protected right,” ’ ” State v. Property at 2018 Rainbow Drive, 740 So.2d 1025, 1027 (Ala.1999) (quoting Romer v. Board of County Comm’rs of the County of Pueblo, 956 P.2d 566, 581 (Colo.1998) (emphasis omitted)), “the real party in interest principle is a means to identify the person who possesses the right sought to be enforced.” Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R.

2015Cf. Ex parte Simpson, 36 So.3d 15, 24-25 (Ala.2009) (holding that the doctrine of real party in interest, as opposed to standing, was implicated by the issue whether a party was entitled to sue a governmental entity alleging inverse condemnation after the party allegedly had assigned away its rights to litigate, and to recover compensation for, governmental takings).

2015See generally Ex parte BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., 159 So.3d 31 (Ala.2013) (discussing standing and distinguishing that concept from others, such as real party in interest and failure to state a claim). .