affirmative duty of showing error in Alabama

2026See Soutullo v. Mobile Cnty., 58 So. 3d 733, 738 (Ala. 2010) ("In order to secure a reversal, 'the appellant has an affirmative duty of showing error upon the record." (quoting Tucker v. Nichols, 431 So. 2d 1263, 1264 (Ala. 1983))).

2025Our supreme court affirmed the judgment, writing, as set out in Nobles: " 'In order to secure a reversal, "the appellant has an affirmative duty of showing error upon the 8 CL-2024-0534 record." Tucker v. Nichols, 431 So. 2d 1263, 1264 (Ala.1983).

2012This difference is predicated on the ‘long-standing, well-established rule that [in order to secure a reversal ] the appellant has an affirmative duty of showing error upon the record.’ Tucker v. Nichols, supra, at 1264.” 537 So.2d at 465 (emphasis on “affirms” in original; other emphasis added).

2011This difference is predicated on the long-standing, well-established rule that [in order to secure a reversal] the appellant has an affirmative duty of showing error upon the record.’ Tucker v. Nichols, supra, at 1264.” 537 So.2d at 465 (first and last emphases added).

2025It is a familiar principle of law: " ' "When an appellant confronts an issue below that the appellee contends warrants a judgment in its favor and the trial court's order does not specify a basis for its ruling, the omission of any argument on appeal as to that issue in the appellant's principal brief constitutes a waiver with respect to the issue." "Fogarty v. Southworth, 953 So. 2d 1225, 1232 (Ala. 2006) (footnote omitted) (emphasis added).

2007As I understand the rule proposed in Justice Lyons's dissent, it would require this Court to affirm a trial court's judgment where the appellee makes an argument for affirmance that is "not frivolous on its face." Justice Lyons relies on the "`long-standing, well-established rule that [in order to secure a reversal] the appellant has an affirmative duty of showing error upon the record,'" 979 So.2d at 46 (Lyons, J., dissenting) (quoting Tucker v. Nichols, 431 So.2d 1263, 1265 (Ala.1983)), as well as this Court's decision in Fogarty v. Southworth, 953 So.2d 1225 (Ala.2006).

2026See Soutullo v. Mobile Cnty., 58 So. 3d 733, 738 (Ala. 2010) ("In order to secure a reversal, 'the appellant has an affirmative duty of showing error upon the record." (quoting Tucker v. Nichols, 431 So. 2d 1263, 1264 (Ala. 1983))).

2016Sou-tullo v. Mobile Cty., 58 So.3d 733, 738 (Ala.2010) (quoting Tucker v. Nichols, 431 So.2d 1263, 1264 (Ala.1983)) (“In order to secure a reversal, ‘the appellant has an affirmative duty of showing error upon the record.’ ”).

2010See Lee v. YES of Russellville, Inc., 858 So.2d 250, 257 (Ala.2003) ("The trial court will not be placed in error on the basis of issues never presented to it.”), and Tucker v. Nichols, 431 So.2d 1263, 1264 (Ala.1983) (noting the "longstanding, well-established rule that [in order to secure a reversal] the appellant has an affirmative duty of showing error upon the record”).

2006Lee v. YES of Russellville, Inc. , 858 So.2d 250 , 257 (Ala. 2003) ("The trial court will not be placed in error on the basis of issues never presented to it."); and Smith v. Equifax Servs., Inc. , 537 So.2d 463 , 465 (Ala. 1988) (noting the "`longstanding, well established rule that [in order to secure a reversal] the appellant has an affirmative duty of showing error upon the record'").

2024This court stated: "No transcript of that hearing is before this court, so we cannot determine whether the father made a general appearance or a special appearance, whether the parties were given an opportunity to present evidence and declined, or otherwise what took place at that hearing. 'An appellate court does not presume error; the appellant has the affirmative duty of showing error.' Greer v. Greer, 624 So. 2d 1076, 1077 (Ala. Civ.

2024See Ex parte Dumas, 259 So. 3d at 672 (" 'An appellate court does not presume error; the appellant has the affirmative duty of showing error.' " (quoting Greer v. Greer, 624 So. 2d 1076, 1077 (Ala. Civ.

2025Gas Co., 142 So. 3d 436, 464 (Ala. 2013).

2024See Ex parte Dumas, 259 So. 3d at 672 (" 'An appellate court does not presume error; the appellant has the affirmative duty of showing error.' " (quoting Greer v. Greer, 624 So. 2d 1076, 1077 (Ala. Civ.

2015“In order to secure a reversal, ‘the appellant has an affirmative duty of showing error upon the record.’ ” Alabama Dep’t of Transp. v. Reid, 74 So.3d 465, 469 (Ala.Civ.App.2011) (quoting Tucker v. Nichols, 431 So.2d 1263, 1264 (Ala.1983)).

2013Moreover, as this Court stated in Pharma-cia, the 12 factors are factors that “a court might consider when determining the reasonableness of an attorney fee,” 915 So.2d at 552 (emphasis added), but the 12 factors “are not an exhaustive list of specific criteria that must all be met.” 915 So.2d at 553 .

2013Moreover, as this Court stated in Pharma-cia, the 12 factors are factors that “a court might consider when determining the reasonableness of an attorney fee,” 915 So.2d at 552 (emphasis added), but the 12 factors “are not an exhaustive list of specific criteria that must all be met.” 915 So.2d at 553 .

2011See Tucker v. Nichols, 431 So.2d 1263, 1265 (Ala.1983) (stating that in order to secure a reversal “the appellant has an affirmative duty of showing error upon the record”); see also Schiesz v. Schiesz, 941 So.2d 279, 289 (Ala.Civ.App.2006) (“It is not the function of this court to advocate a position on behalf of an appellant or to create a legal argument for the appellant.”).

2011Moreover, it is well settled that, in order to secure a reversal, “the appellant has an affirmative duty of showing error upon the record,” Tucker v. Nichols, 431 So.2d 1263, 1264 (Ala.1983), and that “ ‘[i]t is not the function of this court to search a record on appeal to find evidence to support a party’s argument.’ ” Ellison v. Green, 775 So.2d 831, 833 (Ala.Civ.App.2000)(quoting Brown v. Brown, 719 So.2d 228, 230 (Ala.Civ.App.1998)).

2011Moreover, it is well settled that, in order to secure a reversal, “the appellant has an affirmative duty of showing error upon the record,” Tucker v. Nichols, 431 So.2d 1263, 1264 (Ala.1983), and that “ ‘[i]t is not the function of this court to search a record on appeal to find evidence to support a party’s argument.’ ” Ellison v. Green, 775 So.2d 831, 833 (Ala.Civ.App.2000)(quoting Brown v. Brown, 719 So.2d 228, 230 (Ala.Civ.App.1998)).

2011In Scrushy v. Tucker, 70 So.3d 289, 306-07 (Ala.2011), the supreme court stated: “ ‘In order to secure a reversal, “the appellant has an affirmative duty of showing error upon the record.” Tucker v. Nichols, 431 So.2d 1263, 1264 (Ala.1983).

2009See Smith v. Mark Dodge, Inc., 934 So.2d 375, 380 (Ala.2006) (noting that we will not reverse a trial court’s judgment on a ground not argued on appeal); Tucker v. Nichols, 431 So.2d 1263, 1264 (Ala.1983) (explaining that the appellant has an affirmative duty of showing error upon the record).

2009See Smith v. Mark Dodge, *600 Inc., 934 So.2d 375, 380 (Ala.2006) (noting that we will not reverse a trial court's judgment on a ground not argued on appeal); Tucker v. Nichols, 431 So.2d 1263, 1264 (Ala.1983) (explaining that the appellant has an affirmative duty of showing error upon the record).

2007This difference is predicated on the `long-standing, well-established rule that [in order to secure a reversal] the appellant has an affirmative duty of showing error upon the record.' Tucker v. Nichols, supra, at 1264 ." In Ex parte Ryals, 773 So.2d 1011, 1013 (Ala.2000), this Court, citing Ex parte Wiginton, 743 So.2d 1071 (Ala.1999), and Smith v. Equifax Services, Inc ., observed that "an appellate court can affirm a summary judgment on any valid argument, regardless of whether the argument was presented to, considered by, or even rejected by the trial court." We recognized limitations on t

2007As I understand the rule proposed in Justice Lyons's dissent, it would require this Court to affirm a trial court's judgment where the appellee makes an argument for affirmance that is "not frivolous on its face." Justice Lyons relies on the "`long-standing, well-established rule that [in order to secure a reversal] the appellant has an affirmative duty of showing error upon the record,'" 979 So.2d at 46 (Lyons, J., dissenting) (quoting Tucker v. Nichols, 431 So.2d 1263, 1265 (Ala.1983)), as well as this Court's decision in Fogarty v. Southworth, 953 So.2d 1225 (Ala.2006).

2007This difference is predicated on the `long-standing, well-established rule that [in order to secure a reversal] the appellant has an affirmative duty of showing error upon the record.' Tucker v. Nichols, supra, at 1264 ." In Ex parte Ryals, 773 So.2d 1011, 1013 (Ala.2000), this Court, citing Ex parte Wiginton, 743 So.2d 1071 (Ala.1999), and Smith v. Equifax Services, Inc ., observed that "an appellate court can affirm a summary judgment on any valid argument, regardless of whether the argument was presented to, considered by, or even rejected by the trial court." We recognized limitations on t

2007In turn, the Court in General Motors Corp. cited Liberty National Life Insurance Co. in support of its statement in that case that "[t]his Court may affirm" a trial court's judgment on any valid legal ground, 885 So.2d at 124 (emphasis added). [25] The rule that an appellate court will not reverse a judgment on a ground not argued on appeal is synonymous with the "long-standing, well-established rule that [in order to secure a reversal] the appellant has an affirmative duty of showing error upon the record." Tucker v. Nichols, 431 So.2d 1263, 1264 (Ala.1983) (regarding the appellant's burden i

2007This difference is predicated on the `long-standing, well-established rule that [in order to secure a reversal] the appellant has an affirmative duty of showing error upon the record.' Tucker v. Nichols, supra, at 1264 ." In Ex parte Ryals, 773 So.2d 1011, 1013 (Ala.2000), this Court, citing Ex parte Wiginton, 743 So.2d 1071 (Ala.1999), and Smith v. Equifax Services, Inc ., observed that "an appellate court can affirm a summary judgment on any valid argument, regardless of whether the argument was presented to, considered by, or even rejected by the trial court." We recognized limitations on t

2007McMillan, Ltd. v. Warrior Drilling & Eng'g Co., 512 So.2d 14, 25 (Ala.1986).