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 1953–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Roden v. Walkergreen2 sentences2017App. 2008) (quoting Roden v. Walker, 535 So.2d 130, 132 (Ala. 1988)). 2008As the father points out, some cases have stated that “the principal factors in determining whether to apply the doctrine of laches are acquiescence and lapse of time.” Roden v. Walker, 535 So.2d 130, 132 (Ala.1988). | 2 | 2 |
L.B. Whitfield, III Family LLC v. Whitfieldgreen1 sentence2017Whitfield, III Family LLC v. Whitfield, 150 So.3d 171, 180-81 (Ala. 2014). “ ‘[T]he principal factors in determining whether to apply the doctrine of laches are acquiescence and lapse of time.’” Mills v. Dailey, 38 So.3d 731, 734 (Ala. Civ. | 1 | 1 |
Mills v. Daileygreen1 sentence2017Whitfield, III Family LLC v. Whitfield, 150 So.3d 171, 180-81 (Ala. 2014). “ ‘[T]he principal factors in determining whether to apply the doctrine of laches are acquiescence and lapse of time.’” Mills v. Dailey, 38 So.3d 731, 734 (Ala. Civ. | 1 | 1 |
Dunn v. Poncelergreen2 sentences2008That is, “ ‘[m]ore specifically, [laches] is inexcusable delay in asserting a right; an implied waiver arising from knowledge of existing conditions and an acquiescence in them.’ ” Dunn v. Ponceler, 235 Ala. 269, 276 , 178 So. 40, 46 (1937) (quoting 21 Corpus Juris, pp. 210, 211). 2008That is, “ ‘[m]ore specifically, [laches] is inexcusable delay in asserting a right; an implied waiver arising from knowledge of existing conditions and an acquiescence in them.’ ” Dunn v. Ponceler, 235 Ala. 269, 276 , 178 So. 40, 46 (1937) (quoting 21 Corpus Juris, pp. 210, 211). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Darden v. Meadows
green
2 sentences1988In the case of Darden v. Meadows, 259 Ala. 676 , 68 So.2d 709 (1953), the Court held that one such circumstance is the intervening death of a witness: “The principal foundations of the doctrine of laches are acquiescence and lapse of time. 1988In the case of Darden v. Meadows, 259 Ala. 676 , 68 So.2d 709 (1953), the Court held that one such circumstance is the intervening death of a witness: “The principal foundations of the doctrine of laches are acquiescence and lapse of time. | 2 | 1960–1988 |
Johnson v. Sandlin
neutral
2 sentences1953Johnson v. Sandlin, 209 Ala. 430 , 96 So. 223 . * * * This rule is especially salutary in cases like this one where death has sealed the lips of the party against whom relief is sought.” The principal foundations of the doctrine of laches are acquiescence and lapse of time. 1953Johnson v. Sandlin, 209 Ala. 430 , 96 So. 223 . * * * This rule is especially salutary in cases like this one where death has sealed the lips of the party against whom relief is sought.” The principal foundations of the doctrine of laches are acquiescence and lapse of time. | 1 | 1953–1953 |