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 3 courts 1965–2012 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 |
|---|---|---|
Fortenberry v. Stategreen1 sentence1994This Court addressed a similar argument in Fortenberry v. State, 545 So.2d 129, 143-44 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), affirmed, 545 So.2d 145 (Ala.1989), cert. denied, *71 495 U.S. 911 , 110 S.Ct. 1937 , 109 L.Ed.2d 300 (1990). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Board of School Commissioners v. Christopher
green
2 sentences2012This court reversed the hearing officer’s decision, stating that “[w]e cannot agree with the hearing officer’s determination that former § 36-26-104(a) authorized him to determine, in the absence of allegations of improper motive, whether the termination of a particular employee’s employment was justifiable under a RIF policy.” 97 So.3d at 173-74 . 2012This court also generally observed that “once the determination that [the employee’s] employment was properly terminated due to a justifiable decrease in jobs within the system was made, the hearing officer had no authority to second-guess the termination decision of the Board.” 97 So.3d at 176 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Bishop State Community College v. Williams
green
1 sentence2009In Williams, supra, this court reversed a hearing officer’s determination for, among other reasons, failing to address the preliminary question of whether the employer had proved proper grounds for terminating an employee’s employment. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
John Edward Swindler, V
green
1 sentence1994This Court addressed a similar argument in Fortenberry v. State, 545 So.2d 129, 143-44 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), affirmed, 545 So.2d 145 (Ala.1989), cert. denied, *71 495 U.S. 911 , 110 S.Ct. 1937 , 109 L.Ed.2d 300 (1990). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Ex Parte Fortenberry
green
1 sentence1994This Court addressed a similar argument in Fortenberry v. State, 545 So.2d 129, 143-44 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), affirmed, 545 So.2d 145 (Ala.1989), cert. denied, *71 495 U.S. 911 , 110 S.Ct. 1937 , 109 L.Ed.2d 300 (1990). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
City of St. George v. Foremaster
green
1 sentence1994This Court addressed a similar argument in Fortenberry v. State, 545 So.2d 129, 143-44 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), affirmed, 545 So.2d 145 (Ala.1989), cert. denied, *71 495 U.S. 911 , 110 S.Ct. 1937 , 109 L.Ed.2d 300 (1990). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Christian v. American Freehold Land Mortgage Co.
neutral
1 sentence1971Respondent relies on the doctrine of cases such as Christian v. American Freehold Land & Mortgage Co., 89 Ala. 198 , 7 So. 427 , in which this court reversed for error in overruling demurrer predicated on the failure of the bill to allege compliance with our laws as to designation of a place of business and an agent. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Buye v. Alabama Marble Quarries
neutral
2 sentences1966In Buye v. Alabama Marble Quarries, 199 Ala. 589 , 75 So. 9 , in an action against a corporation for wrongful death of plaintiff’s intestate, this court reversed for error in admitting, over plaintiff’s objection, the testimony of a stockholder of defendant as to a conversation with plaintiff’s intestate. 1966In Buye v. Alabama Marble Quarries, 199 Ala. 589 , 75 So. 9 , in an action against a corporation for wrongful death of plaintiff’s intestate, this court reversed for error in admitting, over plaintiff’s objection, the testimony of a stockholder of defendant as to a conversation with plaintiff’s intestate. | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Jaques v. Horton
neutral
1 sentence1965In Jaques v. Horton, supra, this court reversed for error in allowing a witness, for the purpose of refreshing his memory, to inspect a paper purporting to be a copy, but! which was not known or recognized by the^ witness, nor verified as a true copy of the original. | 1 | 1965–1965 |
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.