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 2 courts 1979–2012 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bolton v. Boltongreen2 sentences2009Instead, those cases explain that in *1094 dividing marital property the trial court undertakes a complex analysis of numerous factual components, including: "`[T]he future prospects of the parties; their ages, health, and stations in life; the length of their marriage; the source, value and type of property owned; the standard of living to which the parties have become accustomed during the marriage and the potential for maintaining that standard; and, in appropriate situations, the conduct of the parties with reference to the cause of the divorce.'" Adams v. Adams, 778 So.2d 825, 827 (Ala. C 2009Instead, those cases explain that in dividing marital property the trial court undertakes a complex analysis of numerous factual components, including: “ ‘[T]he future prospects of the parties; their ages, health, and stations in life; the length of their marriage; the source, value and type of property owned; the standard of living to which the parties have become accustomed during the marriage and the potential for maintaining that standard; and, in appropriate situations, the conduct of the parties with reference to the cause of the divorce.’ ” Adams v. Adams, 778 So.2d 825, 827 (Ala.Civ.Ap | 1 | 1 |
Adams v. Adamsgreen2 sentences2009Instead, those cases explain that in *1094 dividing marital property the trial court undertakes a complex analysis of numerous factual components, including: "`[T]he future prospects of the parties; their ages, health, and stations in life; the length of their marriage; the source, value and type of property owned; the standard of living to which the parties have become accustomed during the marriage and the potential for maintaining that standard; and, in appropriate situations, the conduct of the parties with reference to the cause of the divorce.'" Adams v. Adams, 778 So.2d 825, 827 (Ala. C 2009Instead, those cases explain that in dividing marital property the trial court undertakes a complex analysis of numerous factual components, including: “ ‘[T]he future prospects of the parties; their ages, health, and stations in life; the length of their marriage; the source, value and type of property owned; the standard of living to which the parties have become accustomed during the marriage and the potential for maintaining that standard; and, in appropriate situations, the conduct of the parties with reference to the cause of the divorce.’ ” Adams v. Adams, 778 So.2d 825, 827 (Ala.Civ.Ap | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Goldblatt v. Town of Hempstead
green
2 sentences2012The phrase actually used in Penn Central was ‘distinct investment-backed expectations.’ Penn Central cited Goldblatt v. Town of Hempstead, 369 U.S. 590, 594 , 82 S.Ct. 987 , 8 L.Ed.2d 130 (1962), as the source of this factor, but no phrasing similar to it is used at the page cited or anywhere else in the Goldblatt opinion. 2012The phrase actually used in Penn Central was ‘distinct investment-backed expectations.’ Penn Central cited Goldblatt v. Town of Hempstead, 369 U.S. 590, 594 , 82 S.Ct. 987 , 8 L.Ed.2d 130 (1962), as the source of this factor, but no phrasing similar to it is used at the page cited or anywhere else in the Goldblatt opinion. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
green
2 sentences2012“In Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, supra, the Court explained that ‘[t]he Penn Central analysis involves “a complex of factors including the regulation’s economic effect on the landowner, the extent to which the regulation interferes with reasonable investment-backed expectations, and the character of the government action.” ’ 535 U.S. at 315 n. 10, 122 S.Ct. 1465 , 152 L.Ed.2d 517 (quoting Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606, 616 , 121 S.Ct. 2448 , 150 L.Ed.2d 592 (2001)). 2012“In Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, supra, the Court explained that ‘[t]he Penn Central analysis involves “a complex of factors including the regulation’s economic effect on the landowner, the extent to which the regulation interferes with reasonable investment-backed expectations, and the character of the government action.” ’ 535 U.S. at 315 n. 10, 122 S.Ct. 1465 , 152 L.Ed.2d 517 (quoting Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606, 616 , 121 S.Ct. 2448 , 150 L.Ed.2d 592 (2001)). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island
green
2 sentences2012“In Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, supra, the Court explained that ‘[t]he Penn Central analysis involves “a complex of factors including the regulation’s economic effect on the landowner, the extent to which the regulation interferes with reasonable investment-backed expectations, and the character of the government action.” ’ 535 U.S. at 315 n. 10, 122 S.Ct. 1465 , 152 L.Ed.2d 517 (quoting Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606, 616 , 121 S.Ct. 2448 , 150 L.Ed.2d 592 (2001)). 2012“In Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, supra, the Court explained that ‘[t]he Penn Central analysis involves “a complex of factors including the regulation’s economic effect on the landowner, the extent to which the regulation interferes with reasonable investment-backed expectations, and the character of the government action.” ’ 535 U.S. at 315 n. 10, 122 S.Ct. 1465 , 152 L.Ed.2d 517 (quoting Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606, 616 , 121 S.Ct. 2448 , 150 L.Ed.2d 592 (2001)). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Clayton v. State
green
2 sentences1984The trial judge is characterized as *Page 863 having exercised a "roughshod manner . . . in refusing to continue the trial . . . pending discovery of any and all exculpatory material . . ., or the location of any and all witnesses who could aid in the presentation of the complex defense such as entrapment." "The reversal of a conviction because of the refusal of the trial judge to grant a continuance requires `a positive demonstration of abuse of judicial discretion.' Clayton v. State , 45 Ala. App. 127 , 129 , 226 So.2d 671 , 672 (1969)." Beauregard v. State , 372 So.2d 37 , 43 (Ala.Cr.App.), 1984The trial judge is characterized as *Page 863 having exercised a "roughshod manner . . . in refusing to continue the trial . . . pending discovery of any and all exculpatory material . . ., or the location of any and all witnesses who could aid in the presentation of the complex defense such as entrapment." "The reversal of a conviction because of the refusal of the trial judge to grant a continuance requires `a positive demonstration of abuse of judicial discretion.' Clayton v. State , 45 Ala. App. 127 , 129 , 226 So.2d 671 , 672 (1969)." Beauregard v. State , 372 So.2d 37 , 43 (Ala.Cr.App.), | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Beauregard v. State
green
1 sentence1984The trial judge is characterized as *Page 863 having exercised a "roughshod manner . . . in refusing to continue the trial . . . pending discovery of any and all exculpatory material . . ., or the location of any and all witnesses who could aid in the presentation of the complex defense such as entrapment." "The reversal of a conviction because of the refusal of the trial judge to grant a continuance requires `a positive demonstration of abuse of judicial discretion.' Clayton v. State , 45 Ala. App. 127 , 129 , 226 So.2d 671 , 672 (1969)." Beauregard v. State , 372 So.2d 37 , 43 (Ala.Cr.App.), | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Ex Parte Beauregard
green
1 sentence1984The trial judge is characterized as *Page 863 having exercised a "roughshod manner . . . in refusing to continue the trial . . . pending discovery of any and all exculpatory material . . ., or the location of any and all witnesses who could aid in the presentation of the complex defense such as entrapment." "The reversal of a conviction because of the refusal of the trial judge to grant a continuance requires `a positive demonstration of abuse of judicial discretion.' Clayton v. State , 45 Ala. App. 127 , 129 , 226 So.2d 671 , 672 (1969)." Beauregard v. State , 372 So.2d 37 , 43 (Ala.Cr.App.), | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Tucker v. State
green
1 sentence1984"This Court must determine whether or not there has been an abuse of discretion in light of the circumstances of each case, looking particularly to those reasons the defendant presented to the trial judge." Tucker v. State , 429 So.2d 1165 , 1169 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
City of Mobile v. Havard
green
2 sentences1980That case, City of Mobile v. Havard , 289 Ala. 532 , 268 So.2d 805 (1972), was a negligence case. 1980That case, City of Mobile v. Havard , 289 Ala. 532 , 268 So.2d 805 (1972), was a negligence case. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Wolston v. Reader's Digest Assn., Inc.
green
2 sentences1979In Wolston v. Readers Digest Association, Inc., ___ U.S. ____, 99 S.Ct. 2701 , 61 L.Ed.2d 450 (1979), the Supreme Court held that a "libel defendant must show more than mere newsworthiness to justify application of the demanding burden of New York Times . " Wolston, supra, employed a complex analysis in determining whether one is a "limited-purpose public figure." First, did the party voluntarily thrust or inject himself into the forefront of the public controversy surrounding the alleged libelous statements? 1979In Wolston v. Readers Digest Association, Inc., ___ U.S. ____, 99 S.Ct. 2701 , 61 L.Ed.2d 450 (1979), the Supreme Court held that a "libel defendant must show more than mere newsworthiness to justify application of the demanding burden of New York Times . " Wolston, supra, employed a complex analysis in determining whether one is a "limited-purpose public figure." First, did the party voluntarily thrust or inject himself into the forefront of the public controversy surrounding the alleged libelous statements? | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.