case comes within exception (Alabama) · Go Syfert
← Alabama issues

case comes within exception in Alabama

5 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1892–1984 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.

Followed or applied (0)

CaseFollowedCited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama.

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (8)

CaseCitedYears
Roe v. Wade red
scotus · 1973
2 sentences

1984The usual rule as stated by the majority is "that declaratory judgment proceedings will not lie for an anticipated controversy." However, the conflict presented in this case comes within the exception to the general rule for cases that are "capable of repetition, yet evading review." Roe v. Wade , 410 U.S. 113 , 126 , 93 S.Ct. 705 , 713 , 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973); Murphy v. Hunt , 455 U.S. 478 , 482 , 102 S.Ct. 1181 , 1183 , 71 L.Ed.2d 353 (1982).

1984The usual rule as stated by the majority is "that declaratory judgment proceedings will not lie for an anticipated controversy." However, the conflict presented in this case comes within the exception to the general rule for cases that are "capable of repetition, yet evading review." Roe v. Wade , 410 U.S. 113 , 126 , 93 S.Ct. 705 , 713 , 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973); Murphy v. Hunt , 455 U.S. 478 , 482 , 102 S.Ct. 1181 , 1183 , 71 L.Ed.2d 353 (1982).

11984–1984
Murphy v. Hunt green
scotus · 1982
2 sentences

1984The usual rule as stated by the majority is "that declaratory judgment proceedings will not lie for an anticipated controversy." However, the conflict presented in this case comes within the exception to the general rule for cases that are "capable of repetition, yet evading review." Roe v. Wade , 410 U.S. 113 , 126 , 93 S.Ct. 705 , 713 , 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973); Murphy v. Hunt , 455 U.S. 478 , 482 , 102 S.Ct. 1181 , 1183 , 71 L.Ed.2d 353 (1982).

1984The usual rule as stated by the majority is "that declaratory judgment proceedings will not lie for an anticipated controversy." However, the conflict presented in this case comes within the exception to the general rule for cases that are "capable of repetition, yet evading review." Roe v. Wade , 410 U.S. 113 , 126 , 93 S.Ct. 705 , 713 , 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973); Murphy v. Hunt , 455 U.S. 478 , 482 , 102 S.Ct. 1181 , 1183 , 71 L.Ed.2d 353 (1982).

11984–1984
Atlanta Mut. Ins. Co. v. Price neutral
ala · 1923
2 sentences

1930Co. v. Price, 210 Ala. 334 , 97 So. 826 .

1930Co. v. Price, 210 Ala. 334 , 97 So. 826 .

11930–1930
Sovereign Camp, Woodmen of the World v. Hackworth green
ala · 1917
2 sentences

1920Defendant insists that this case comes within the rule laid down in the Hackworth Case, 200 Ala. 87 , 75 So. 463 .

1920Defendant insists that this case comes within the rule laid down in the Hackworth Case, 200 Ala. 87 , 75 So. 463 .

11920–1920
Birmingham Railway & Electric Co. v. Allen green
· 1892
1 sentence

1898Co. v. Allen, 99 Ala. 359 , (reaffirming Eureka Co. v. Bass, 81 Ala. 201 ); L. & N. R.

11898–1898
Phillips v. State green
ala · 1881
1 sentence

1892In the ease of Phillips v. The State, 68 Ala. 469 , the juror claimed to be exempt from jury duty under the provisions of a special statute, and the trial court so held.

11892–1892
Fariss v. State neutral
ala · 1887
1 sentence

1892The case comes within the rule declared in Fariss v. State, 85 Ala. 1, and Maxwell v. State, 89 Ala. 150 .

11892–1892
Maxwell v. State green
ala · 1889
1 sentence

1892The case comes within the rule declared in Fariss v. State, 85 Ala. 1, and Maxwell v. State, 89 Ala. 150 .

11892–1892

Where else courts name it

NY 73 (1823–1976) TX 56 (1873–1975) CA 51 (1875–2021) IL 36 (1870–1994) OK 33 (1902–1966) MI 33 (1871–1975) MN 32 (1876–1957) IA 28 (1876–1988) MO 28 (1867–1995) MA 26 (1830–2003) PA 23 (1891–1979) GA 20 (1877–2012) KY 20 (1905–1977) OR 17 (1885–2005) KS 16 (1883–1940) WA 14 (1906–2012) AR 13 (1893–1985) LA 13 (1903–1982) NC 13 (1890–1976) MS 10 (1877–1968) WI 10 (1872–1979) NE 9 (1905–1959) OH 8 (1875–1932) SD 7 (1895–1936) FL 7 (1918–1969) NM 7 (1933–1965) TN 7 (1906–1983) UT 6 (1901–1926) SC 6 (1903–1936) IN 6 (1846–1963) CT 6 (1862–1983) VT 6 (1837–1923) CO 5 (1877–1931) NJ 5 (1924–1947) AL 5 (1892–1984) MT 4 (1894–1959) WV 4 (1950–1988) VA 4 (1917–1940) DC 3 (1891–2004) ID 3 (1909–1929) ND 3 (1923–1951) DE 3 (1911–1981) MD 3 (1923–1998) RI 2 (1949–1977)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check