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.
5 Alabama opinions name it 3 courts 1992–2026 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Carter v. Beckgreen2 sentences2007The court stated that “it [was] possible that Beck could have learned of Carter’s claim from a source other than Carter or his attorney or could have obtained from such a source information from which she could have reasonably identified Carter as a potential claimant against Vaughn’s estate.” Id. 2007The court determined that because Beck had “presented no evidence to eliminate this possibility,” the court could not hold, under the standard for reviewing a summary judgment, “that Beck neither knew nor had any reasonable means of *1259 ascertaining the existence of Carter’s claim within six months after she was issued letters of administration and, thus, that she was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Id. | 2 | 2 |
Ex Parte Burr & Forman, LLPgreen1 sentence2026Standard of Review " 'Mandamus is a drastic and extraordinary writ, to be issued only where there is (1) a clear legal right in the petitioner to the order sought; (2) an imperative duty upon the respondent to perform, accompanied by a refusal to do so; (3) the lack of another adequate remedy; and (4) properly invoked jurisdiction of the court.' " Ex parte Jones, 414 So. 3d 86 , 88-89 (Ala. 2024) (citation omitted). " 'A trial court's denial of a motion to transfer based on improper venue is reviewable by a petition for writ of mandamus, and "such a petition is due to be granted if the petitio | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Alabama Power Co.green1 sentence2026Standard of Review " 'Mandamus is a drastic and extraordinary writ, to be issued only where there is (1) a clear legal right in the petitioner to the order sought; (2) an imperative duty upon the respondent to perform, accompanied by a refusal to do so; (3) the lack of another adequate remedy; and (4) properly invoked jurisdiction of the court.' " Ex parte Jones, 414 So. 3d 86 , 88-89 (Ala. 2024) (citation omitted). " 'A trial court's denial of a motion to transfer based on improper venue is reviewable by a petition for writ of mandamus, and "such a petition is due to be granted if the petitio | 1 | 1 |
Saulsberry v. Thomasville Feed & Seed, Inc.green1 sentence2026Standard of Review " 'Mandamus is a drastic and extraordinary writ, to be issued only where there is (1) a clear legal right in the petitioner to the order sought; (2) an imperative duty upon the respondent to perform, accompanied by a refusal to do so; (3) the lack of another adequate remedy; and (4) properly invoked jurisdiction of the court.' " Ex parte Jones, 414 So. 3d 86 , 88-89 (Ala. 2024) (citation omitted). " 'A trial court's denial of a motion to transfer based on improper venue is reviewable by a petition for writ of mandamus, and "such a petition is due to be granted if the petitio | 1 | 1 |
Jefferson Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Clarkgreen1 sentence1992See Jefferson Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n of Birmingham v. Clark, 540 So.2d 61 (Ala.1989). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
American Home Assur. Co. v. Gaylor
green
2 sentences2007More recently, in American Home As surance Company v. Gaylor, supra, the Alabama Supreme Court reversed another summary judgment in favor of an adminis-tratrix because the administratrix had “failed to demonstrate that she did not have a reasonable means of ascertaining whether [a creditor who had filed a claim after the time allowed by the nonclaims statute had passed] had a claim against the estate.” 894 So.2d at 661 . 2007More recently, in American Home As surance Company v. Gaylor, supra, the Alabama Supreme Court reversed another summary judgment in favor of an adminis-tratrix because the administratrix had “failed to demonstrate that she did not have a reasonable means of ascertaining whether [a creditor who had filed a claim after the time allowed by the nonclaims statute had passed] had a claim against the estate.” 894 So.2d at 661 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Carter v. State
green
1 sentence1992Moreover, in Carter v. State , [Ms. CR-90-630, Jan. 31, 1992], 1992 WL 37391 (Ala.Cr.App. 1992), this court held that the minute entry recitation that a "hearing on a youthful offender application was conducted" had to be accepted as true because there was nothing in the record to substantiate Carter's claim that an appropriate hearing was not held. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.