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 1992–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Blackmon v. Stategreen1 sentence2015See Blackmon , 7 So.3d at 434-35 (holding that the circuit court's instruction that specific "intent may be inferred if the act is done deliberately and the death was reasonably to be apprehended or expected as a natural and probable consequence of the act" created a permissive presumption). | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Troncalli Chrysler Plymouth Dodgegreen1 sentence2015As Bufkin notes, however, although .the standard for permitting jurisdictional discovery is “quite low,” the plaintiff requesting jurisdictional discovery “ ‘must offer the court “more than conjecture and surmise in support' of [the] jurisdictional theory,” ’ ” and a request for discovery that is predicated “ ‘ “upon ‘bare,’ ‘attenuated,’ or ‘unsupported’ assertions of personal jurisdiction” ’ ” is due to be denied. 936 So.2d at 1047 (quoting Ex parte Troncalli Chrysler Plymouth Dodge, Inc., 876 So.2d 459, 468 (Ala.2003), quoting in turn Andersen v. Sportmart, Inc., 179 F.R.D. 236, 242 (N.D.In | 1 | 1 |
Andersen v. Sportmart, Inc.green1 sentence2015As Bufkin notes, however, although .the standard for permitting jurisdictional discovery is “quite low,” the plaintiff requesting jurisdictional discovery “ ‘must offer the court “more than conjecture and surmise in support' of [the] jurisdictional theory,” ’ ” and a request for discovery that is predicated “ ‘ “upon ‘bare,’ ‘attenuated,’ or ‘unsupported’ assertions of personal jurisdiction” ’ ” is due to be denied. 936 So.2d at 1047 (quoting Ex parte Troncalli Chrysler Plymouth Dodge, Inc., 876 So.2d 459, 468 (Ala.2003), quoting in turn Andersen v. Sportmart, Inc., 179 F.R.D. 236, 242 (N.D.In | 1 | 1 |
James v. Stategreen2 sentences2002Viewed in this context, the undertaking was clearly not for the benefit of the employer or employee." James , 90 A.D.2d at 345 , 457 N.Y.S.2d at 152 (footnote omitted). 2002Viewed in this context, the undertaking was clearly not for the benefit of the employer or employee." James , 90 A.D.2d at 345 , 457 N.Y.S.2d at 152 (footnote 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 |
|---|---|---|
Francis v. Franklin
green
2 sentences1999In this situation, the permissive presumption "`[did] not relieve the state of its burden of persuasion because the presumption still require[d] the state to convince the jury that the suggested conclusion should be inferred based on the predicate facts proved.'" Beard , 612 So.2d at 1343 , quoting Francis v. Franklin , 471 U.S. 307 , 314 , 105 S.Ct. 1965 , 1971 , 85 L.Ed.2d 344 (1985). 1999In this situation, the permissive presumption "`[did] not relieve the state of its burden of persuasion because the presumption still require[d] the state to convince the jury that the suggested conclusion should be inferred based on the predicate facts proved.'" Beard , 612 So.2d at 1343 , quoting Francis v. Franklin , 471 U.S. 307 , 314 , 105 S.Ct. 1965 , 1971 , 85 L.Ed.2d 344 (1985). | 3 | 1992–2014 |
Ex Parte Bufkin
green
2 sentences2015As the Rutledges argue, this Court in Ex parte Bufkin, 936 So.2d 1042 (Ala.2006), embraced a permissive rule sustaining a plaintiffs right to conduct jurisdictional discovery when the plaintiff has alleged particular facts suggesting the possible existence of the requisite contacts with the forum state and when the basis for the plaintiffs claim of jurisdiction is not facially frivolous. 936 So.2d at 1048 . 2015As the Rutledges argue, this Court in Ex parte Bufkin, 936 So.2d 1042 (Ala.2006), embraced a permissive rule sustaining a plaintiffs right to conduct jurisdictional discovery when the plaintiff has alleged particular facts suggesting the possible existence of the requisite contacts with the forum state and when the basis for the plaintiffs claim of jurisdiction is not facially frivolous. 936 So.2d at 1048 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Beard v. State
green
1 sentence1999In this situation, the permissive presumption "`[did] not relieve the state of its burden of persuasion because the presumption still require[d] the state to convince the jury that the suggested conclusion should be inferred based on the predicate facts proved.'" Beard , 612 So.2d at 1343 , quoting Francis v. Franklin , 471 U.S. 307 , 314 , 105 S.Ct. 1965 , 1971 , 85 L.Ed.2d 344 (1985). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.