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 2002–2017 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 Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Al.green2 sentences2017App.' 1985)(holding that the unclean-hands doctrine is an affirmative defense), “The proponent of an affirmative defense ‘bears the burden of proving the essential elements of his affirmative defenses.’” Ex parte Ramsay, 829 So.2d 146, 152 (Ala. 2002) (quoting Ex parte Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama, 773 So.2d 475, 478 (Ala. 2000), and citing Ely v. Pace, 139 Ala. 293, 298 , 35 So. 877 , 878 (1904)). 2010This Court stated in Ex parte Ramsay, 829 So.2d 146, 152 (Ala.2002): “The proponent of an affirmative defense ‘bears the burden of proving the essential elements of his affirmative defenses.’ Ex parte Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama, 773 So.2d 475, 478 (Ala.2000); and see Ely v. Pace, 139 Ala. 293, 298 , 35 So. 877 , 878 (1904) (‘Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit.’).” The Sixth Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary explained the parenthetical maxim as follows: “Ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit.... | 5 | 6 |
Ex Parte Ramsaygreen2 sentences2017App.' 1985)(holding that the unclean-hands doctrine is an affirmative defense), “The proponent of an affirmative defense ‘bears the burden of proving the essential elements of his affirmative defenses.’” Ex parte Ramsay, 829 So.2d 146, 152 (Ala. 2002) (quoting Ex parte Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama, 773 So.2d 475, 478 (Ala. 2000), and citing Ely v. Pace, 139 Ala. 293, 298 , 35 So. 877 , 878 (1904)). 2010This Court stated in Ex parte Ramsay, 829 So.2d 146, 152 (Ala.2002): “The proponent of an affirmative defense ‘bears the burden of proving the essential elements of his affirmative defenses.’ Ex parte Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama, 773 So.2d 475, 478 (Ala.2000); and see Ely v. Pace, 139 Ala. 293, 298 , 35 So. 877 , 878 (1904) (‘Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit.’).” The Sixth Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary explained the parenthetical maxim as follows: “Ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit.... | 4 | 5 |
Ely v. Pacegreen2 sentences2017App.' 1985)(holding that the unclean-hands doctrine is an affirmative defense), “The proponent of an affirmative defense ‘bears the burden of proving the essential elements of his affirmative defenses.’” Ex parte Ramsay, 829 So.2d 146, 152 (Ala. 2002) (quoting Ex parte Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama, 773 So.2d 475, 478 (Ala. 2000), and citing Ely v. Pace, 139 Ala. 293, 298 , 35 So. 877 , 878 (1904)). 2010This Court stated in Ex parte Ramsay, 829 So.2d 146, 152 (Ala.2002): “The proponent of an affirmative defense ‘bears the burden of proving the essential elements of his affirmative defenses.’ Ex parte Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama, 773 So.2d 475, 478 (Ala.2000); and see Ely v. Pace, 139 Ala. 293, 298 , 35 So. 877 , 878 (1904) (‘Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit.’).” The Sixth Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary explained the parenthetical maxim as follows: “Ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit.... | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Edwards v. Allied Home Mortg. Capital Corp.
green
1 sentence2009In Edwards v. Allied Home Mortgage Capital Corp., 962 So.2d 194 (Ala.2007), this Court explained the faithless-servant doctrine: “The faithless-servant doctrine precludes an employee from receiving compensation for conduct that is disloyal to the employer or in violation of the employee’s employment contract. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.