5 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 2008–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Nance v. Graygreen1 sentence2014See Nance v. Gray, 143 Ala. 234, 241 , 38 So. 916 , 918 (1905) (holding that letters testamentary “related back, and validated [prior] acts as executor”). | 1 | 1 |
Nave v. Navegreen1 sentence2010App.2007), this court described the standard by which it reviews a contempt judgment: “The standard of review of a judgment of contempt is as follows: “ ‘ “[Wjhether a party is in contempt of court is a determination committed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and, absent an abuse of that discretion or unless the judgment of the trial court is unsupported by the evidence so as to be plainly and palpably wrong, this court will affirm.” ’ “Nave v. Nave, 942 So.2d 372, 377 (Ala. Civ.App.2005) (quoting Stack v. Stack, 646 So.2d 51, 56 (Ala.Civ.App.1994)). | 1 | 1 |
Gladden v. Gladdengreen1 sentence2010Furthermore, “ ‘ “ ‘[i]n ore tenus proceedings, the trial court is the sole judge of the facts and of the credibility of the witnesses, and it should accept only that testimony which it considers worthy of belief.’ Clemons v. Clemons, 627 So.2d 431, 434 (Ala.Civ.App.1993).” ’ “Gladden v. Gladden, 942 So.2d 362, 369 (Ala.Civ.App.2005) (quoting Ex parte RE.C., 899 So.2d 272, 279 (Ala.2004)).” 972 So.2d at 809 . | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte RECgreen1 sentence2010Furthermore, “ ‘ “ ‘[i]n ore tenus proceedings, the trial court is the sole judge of the facts and of the credibility of the witnesses, and it should accept only that testimony which it considers worthy of belief.’ Clemons v. Clemons, 627 So.2d 431, 434 (Ala.Civ.App.1993).” ’ “Gladden v. Gladden, 942 So.2d 362, 369 (Ala.Civ.App.2005) (quoting Ex parte RE.C., 899 So.2d 272, 279 (Ala.2004)).” 972 So.2d at 809 . | 1 | 1 |
Stack v. Stackgreen1 sentence2010App.2007), this court described the standard by which it reviews a contempt judgment: “The standard of review of a judgment of contempt is as follows: “ ‘ “[Wjhether a party is in contempt of court is a determination committed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and, absent an abuse of that discretion or unless the judgment of the trial court is unsupported by the evidence so as to be plainly and palpably wrong, this court will affirm.” ’ “Nave v. Nave, 942 So.2d 372, 377 (Ala. Civ.App.2005) (quoting Stack v. Stack, 646 So.2d 51, 56 (Ala.Civ.App.1994)). | 1 | 1 |
Hereford v. D.R. Horton, Inc.green2 sentences2010Horton, Inc., 13 So.3d 375, 378 (Ala.2009), this Court described the standard of review applicable to an order confirming or vacating an arbitration award as follows: “The standard by which an appellate court reviews a trial court’s order confirming [or vacating] an arbitration award under the Federal Arbitration Act is that questions of law are reviewed de novo and findings of fact are reviewed only for clear error. 2010Horton, Inc., 13 So.3d 375, 378 (Ala.2009), this Court described the standard of review applicable to an order confirming or vacating an arbitration award as follows: "The standard by which an appellate court reviews a trial court's order confirming [or vacating] an arbitration award under the Federal Arbitration Act is that questions of law are reviewed de novo and findings of fact are reviewed only for clear error. | 1 | 1 |
Clemons v. Clemonsgreen1 sentence2010Furthermore, “ ‘ “ ‘[i]n ore tenus proceedings, the trial court is the sole judge of the facts and of the credibility of the witnesses, and it should accept only that testimony which it considers worthy of belief.’ Clemons v. Clemons, 627 So.2d 431, 434 (Ala.Civ.App.1993).” ’ “Gladden v. Gladden, 942 So.2d 362, 369 (Ala.Civ.App.2005) (quoting Ex parte RE.C., 899 So.2d 272, 279 (Ala.2004)).” 972 So.2d at 809 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Turner v. Westhampton Court, L.L.C.
green
1 sentence2018Turner v. Westhampton Court, L.L.C. , 903 So.2d 82 , 87 (Ala. 2004). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Muller v. Seeds
green
1 sentence2018We first consider the nieces' argument that the trial court erred by entering a summary judgment in favor of Gray on their undue-influence claim. 3 In Muller v. Seeds , 919 So.2d 1174 , 1176-77 (Ala. 2005), this Court described its standard for reviewing a summary judgment as follows: "This Court reviews a summary judgment de novo . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Ogle v. Gordon
green
1 sentence2014This Court described that principle as “a rule of practically universal recognition.” Ogle, 706 So.2d at 709 (quoting McAleer, 215 Ala. at 675 , 112 So. at 253 ). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
McAleer v. Cawthon
green
2 sentences2014This Court described that principle as “a rule of practically universal recognition.” Ogle, 706 So.2d at 709 (quoting McAleer, 215 Ala. at 675 , 112 So. at 253 ). 2014This Court described that principle as “a rule of practically universal recognition.” Ogle, 706 So.2d at 709 (quoting McAleer, 215 Ala. at 675 , 112 So. at 253 ). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Sat v. Ed
green
1 sentence2010Furthermore, “ ‘ “ ‘[i]n ore tenus proceedings, the trial court is the sole judge of the facts and of the credibility of the witnesses, and it should accept only that testimony which it considers worthy of belief.’ Clemons v. Clemons, 627 So.2d 431, 434 (Ala.Civ.App.1993).” ’ “Gladden v. Gladden, 942 So.2d 362, 369 (Ala.Civ.App.2005) (quoting Ex parte RE.C., 899 So.2d 272, 279 (Ala.2004)).” 972 So.2d at 809 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Richards v. Izzi
green
1 sentence2008In Morton , this Court described the standard of review for constitutional challenges of legislative acts as follows: "`Our review of constitutional challenges to legislative enactments is de novo.' Richards v. Izzi, 819 So.2d 25 , 29 n. 3 (Ala.2001). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.