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 1977–2007 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 |
|---|---|---|
Board of Dental Examiners v. Kinggreen2 sentences2007Code (Alabama Board of Massage Therapy), are unconstitutionally overbroad, vague, and ambiguous. 3 “ ‘[I]f regulatory [or statutory] language “provides a sufficiently definite warning so that the conduct sought to be prohibited may be ascertained or comprehended within the common meaning of words or practices, such language will not be held to be unconstitutionally vague.” Delavan v. Board of Dental Examiners, 620 So.2d [13] at 18 [ (Ala.Civ.App.1992) ] (quoting Board of Dental Examiners v. King, 364 So.2d 311, 316 (Ala.Civ.App.1977), reversed on other grounds, 364 So.2d 318 (Ala.), on remand, 2005More specifically, "if regulatory language `provides a sufficiently definite warning so that the conduct sought to be prohibited may be ascertained or comprehended within the common meaning of words or practices, such language will not be held to be unconstitutionally vague.' Delavan v. Board of Dental Examiners , 620 So.2d [13] at 18 [(Ala.Civ.App. 1992)] (quoting Board of Dental Examiners v. King , 364 So.2d 311 , 316 (Ala.Civ.App. 1977), reversed on other grounds, 364 So.2d 318 (Ala.), on remand, 364 So.2d 319 (Ala.Civ.App. 1978))." Kid's Stuff Learning Ctr., Inc. v. State Dep't of Human Re | 2 | 5 |
Kid's Stuff Learning Center, Inc. v. STATE DEPT. OF HUMAN RESOURCESgreen2 sentences2007Code (Alabama Board of Massage Therapy), are unconstitutionally overbroad, vague, and ambiguous. 3 “ ‘[I]f regulatory [or statutory] language “provides a sufficiently definite warning so that the conduct sought to be prohibited may be ascertained or comprehended within the common meaning of words or practices, such language will not be held to be unconstitutionally vague.” Delavan v. Board of Dental Examiners, 620 So.2d [13] at 18 [ (Ala.Civ.App.1992) ] (quoting Board of Dental Examiners v. King, 364 So.2d 311, 316 (Ala.Civ.App.1977), reversed on other grounds, 364 So.2d 318 (Ala.), on remand, 2005More specifically, "if regulatory language `provides a sufficiently definite warning so that the conduct sought to be prohibited may be ascertained or comprehended within the common meaning of words or practices, such language will not be held to be unconstitutionally vague.' Delavan v. Board of Dental Examiners , 620 So.2d [13] at 18 [(Ala.Civ.App. 1992)] (quoting Board of Dental Examiners v. King , 364 So.2d 311 , 316 (Ala.Civ.App. 1977), reversed on other grounds, 364 So.2d 318 (Ala.), on remand, 364 So.2d 319 (Ala.Civ.App. 1978))." Kid's Stuff Learning Ctr., Inc. v. State Dep't of Human Re | 2 | 3 |
Ex Parte Williamsongreen1 sentence2007Code (Alabama Board of Massage Therapy), are unconstitutionally overbroad, vague, and ambiguous. 3 “ ‘[I]f regulatory [or statutory] language “provides a sufficiently definite warning so that the conduct sought to be prohibited may be ascertained or comprehended within the common meaning of words or practices, such language will not be held to be unconstitutionally vague.” Delavan v. Board of Dental Examiners, 620 So.2d [13] at 18 [ (Ala.Civ.App.1992) ] (quoting Board of Dental Examiners v. King, 364 So.2d 311, 316 (Ala.Civ.App.1977), reversed on other grounds, 364 So.2d 318 (Ala.), on remand, | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Boydgreen1 sentence2007Every legislative act is presumed to be constitutional and every intendment is in favor of its validity.’ “Wilkins v. Woolf, 281 Ala. 693, 697 , 208 So.2d 74, 78 (1968) (overruled on other grounds, Tanner v. Tuscaloosa County Comm’n, 594 So.2d 1207 (Ala.1992)).” Ex parte Boyd, 796 So.2d 1092, 1094 (Ala.2001). | 1 | 1 |
Wilkins v. Woolfgreen2 sentences2007Every legislative act is presumed to be constitutional and every intendment is in favor of its validity.’ “Wilkins v. Woolf, 281 Ala. 693, 697 , 208 So.2d 74, 78 (1968) (overruled on other grounds, Tanner v. Tuscaloosa County Comm’n, 594 So.2d 1207 (Ala.1992)).” Ex parte Boyd, 796 So.2d 1092, 1094 (Ala.2001). 2007Every legislative act is presumed to be constitutional and every intendment is in favor of its validity.’ “Wilkins v. Woolf, 281 Ala. 693, 697 , 208 So.2d 74, 78 (1968) (overruled on other grounds, Tanner v. Tuscaloosa County Comm’n, 594 So.2d 1207 (Ala.1992)).” Ex parte Boyd, 796 So.2d 1092, 1094 (Ala.2001). | 1 | 1 |
Jordan v. De Georgegreen2 sentences1977See Jordan v. De George , 341 U.S. 223 , 71 S.Ct. 703 , 95 L.Ed. 886 ; Devine v. Wood , 286 F. Supp. 102 (M.D.Ala.). *Page 317 Pursuant to the aforementioned test (or tests of a similar nature) a number of cases have upheld the validity of statutes which permit revocation of a professional license on the grounds of "incompetency," "gross immorality," and "negligent or wilful" violation of rules promulgated by health authorities. 1977See Jordan v. De George , 341 U.S. 223 , 71 S.Ct. 703 , 95 L.Ed. 886 ; Devine v. Wood , 286 F. Supp. 102 (M.D.Ala.). *Page 317 Pursuant to the aforementioned test (or tests of a similar nature) a number of cases have upheld the validity of statutes which permit revocation of a professional license on the grounds of "incompetency," "gross immorality," and "negligent or wilful" violation of rules promulgated by health authorities. | 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 Dental Examiners v. King
green
2 sentences2007Code (Alabama Board of Massage Therapy), are unconstitutionally overbroad, vague, and ambiguous. 3 “ ‘[I]f regulatory [or statutory] language “provides a sufficiently definite warning so that the conduct sought to be prohibited may be ascertained or comprehended within the common meaning of words or practices, such language will not be held to be unconstitutionally vague.” Delavan v. Board of Dental Examiners, 620 So.2d [13] at 18 [ (Ala.Civ.App.1992) ] (quoting Board of Dental Examiners v. King, 364 So.2d 311, 316 (Ala.Civ.App.1977), reversed on other grounds, 364 So.2d 318 (Ala.), on remand, 2005More specifically, "if regulatory language `provides a sufficiently definite warning so that the conduct sought to be prohibited may be ascertained or comprehended within the common meaning of words or practices, such language will not be held to be unconstitutionally vague.' Delavan v. Board of Dental Examiners , 620 So.2d [13] at 18 [(Ala.Civ.App. 1992)] (quoting Board of Dental Examiners v. King , 364 So.2d 311 , 316 (Ala.Civ.App. 1977), reversed on other grounds, 364 So.2d 318 (Ala.), on remand, 364 So.2d 319 (Ala.Civ.App. 1978))." Kid's Stuff Learning Ctr., Inc. v. State Dep't of Human Re | 5 | 1992–2007 |
Board of Dental Examiners v. King
green
2 sentences2007Code (Alabama Board of Massage Therapy), are unconstitutionally overbroad, vague, and ambiguous. 3 “ ‘[I]f regulatory [or statutory] language “provides a sufficiently definite warning so that the conduct sought to be prohibited may be ascertained or comprehended within the common meaning of words or practices, such language will not be held to be unconstitutionally vague.” Delavan v. Board of Dental Examiners, 620 So.2d [13] at 18 [ (Ala.Civ.App.1992) ] (quoting Board of Dental Examiners v. King, 364 So.2d 311, 316 (Ala.Civ.App.1977), reversed on other grounds, 364 So.2d 318 (Ala.), on remand, 2005More specifically, "if regulatory language `provides a sufficiently definite warning so that the conduct sought to be prohibited may be ascertained or comprehended within the common meaning of words or practices, such language will not be held to be unconstitutionally vague.' Delavan v. Board of Dental Examiners , 620 So.2d [13] at 18 [(Ala.Civ.App. 1992)] (quoting Board of Dental Examiners v. King , 364 So.2d 311 , 316 (Ala.Civ.App. 1977), reversed on other grounds, 364 So.2d 318 (Ala.), on remand, 364 So.2d 319 (Ala.Civ.App. 1978))." Kid's Stuff Learning Ctr., Inc. v. State Dep't of Human Re | 5 | 1992–2007 |
Tanner v. Tuscaloosa County Com'n
green
1 sentence2007Every legislative act is presumed to be constitutional and every intendment is in favor of its validity.’ “Wilkins v. Woolf, 281 Ala. 693, 697 , 208 So.2d 74, 78 (1968) (overruled on other grounds, Tanner v. Tuscaloosa County Comm’n, 594 So.2d 1207 (Ala.1992)).” Ex parte Boyd, 796 So.2d 1092, 1094 (Ala.2001). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Delavan v. Board of Dental Examiners
green
2 sentences1995On the other hand, if regulatory language "provides a sufficiently definite warning so that the conduct sought to be prohibited may be ascertained or comprehended within the common meaning of words or practices, such language will not be held to be unconstitutionally vague." Delavan v. Board of Dental Examiners , 620 So.2d at 18 (quoting Board of Dental Examiners v. King , 364 So.2d 311 , 316 (Ala.Civ.App. 1977), reversed on other grounds, 364 So.2d 318 (Ala.), on remand, 364 So.2d 319 (Ala.Civ.App. 1978)). 1995Delavan v. Board of Dental Examiners , 620 So.2d at 18 . *Page 621 Procedural Due Process Issues KSLC claims that DHR denied it procedural due process in three ways. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Devine v. Wood
green
1 sentence1977See Jordan v. De George , 341 U.S. 223 , 71 S.Ct. 703 , 95 L.Ed. 886 ; Devine v. Wood , 286 F. Supp. 102 (M.D.Ala.). *Page 317 Pursuant to the aforementioned test (or tests of a similar nature) a number of cases have upheld the validity of statutes which permit revocation of a professional license on the grounds of "incompetency," "gross immorality," and "negligent or wilful" violation of rules promulgated by health authorities. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
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.