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 1876–1992 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Oliver v. Holt
green
2 sentences1925Oliver v. Holt, 11 Ala. 574 ; O’Neal v. Brown, 21 Ala. 482 ; Railroad Co. v. Henlein, 56 Ala. 368 ; Wharton v. King, 69 Ala. 365 . 1887This, under the well known principle, that a plaintiff can not split up a single cause of action into two or more suits; and if he does so, and recovers a part of his demand, this is a waiver of and a bar to the residue of his claim, be it much or little. — Oliver v. Holt, 11 Ala. 574 ; O'Neal v. Brown, 21 Ala. 182 ; S. & N. R. | 3 | 1876–1925 |
Brady v. Maryland
green
2 sentences1992III The appellant also contends that the prosecutor violated the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.E.2d 215 (1963), by failing to disclose the negative results of a residue test performed on the appellant’s hands after he was arrested. 1992III The appellant also contends that the prosecutor violated the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.E.2d 215 (1963), by failing to disclose the negative results of a residue test performed on the appellant’s hands after he was arrested. | 2 | 1992–1992 |
O'Neal v. Brown
neutral
2 sentences1925Oliver v. Holt, 11 Ala. 574 ; O’Neal v. Brown, 21 Ala. 482 ; Railroad Co. v. Henlein, 56 Ala. 368 ; Wharton v. King, 69 Ala. 365 . 1876The reason is the simple, yet well-known proposition, that the law will not permit such splitting up of a single cause of action. — Oliver v. Holt, 11 Ala. 574 ; O’Neal v. Brown, 21 Ala. 482 . | 2 | 1876–1925 |
South & North Alabama Railroad v. Henlein & Barr
green
1 sentence1925Oliver v. Holt, 11 Ala. 574 ; O’Neal v. Brown, 21 Ala. 482 ; Railroad Co. v. Henlein, 56 Ala. 368 ; Wharton v. King, 69 Ala. 365 . | 1 | 1925–1925 |
Wharton v. King
neutral
1 sentence1925Oliver v. Holt, 11 Ala. 574 ; O’Neal v. Brown, 21 Ala. 482 ; Railroad Co. v. Henlein, 56 Ala. 368 ; Wharton v. King, 69 Ala. 365 . | 1 | 1925–1925 |
Gunter v. Smith
green
1 sentence1919Harris’ Law of Subrogation, § 29; Sheldon on Subrogation, §§ 70, 71, 25, and 14; Gaskill v. Huffaker (Ky.) 49 S. W. 770 ; Wilkins v. Gibson, 113 Ga. 81 , 38 S. E. 374 , 84 Am. | 1 | 1919–1919 |
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.