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 2008–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lindsey v. United Statesred2 sentences2026Civ. P.,] motion asserting a factual challenge "must go beyond the pleadings and resolve any disputed issues of fact the resolution of which is necessary to a ruling upon the motion to dismiss." [Phoenix Consulting, Inc. v. Republic of Angola, 216 F.3d 36, 40 (D.C. Cir. 2000).] In such situations, "the plaintiff's jurisdictional averments are entitled to no presumptive weight; the court must address the merits of the jurisdictional claim by resolving the factual disputes between the parties." Erby[ v. United States], 424 F. Supp. 2d [180,] 181 [(D.D.C. 2006)] (internal quotations omitted); see 2026Based on that factual challenge, the juvenile court had to " ' "address the merits of the jurisdictional claim by resolving the factual disputes between the parties." ' " Ex parte Safeway, 990 So. 2d at 350 (quoting Lindsey v. United States, 448 F. Supp. 2d 37, 42-43 (D.D.C. 2006), quoting in turn Erby v. United States, 424 F. Supp. 2d 180, 181 (D.D.C. 2006)). | 4 | 5 |
Erby v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2026Based on that factual challenge, the juvenile court had to " ' "address the merits of the jurisdictional claim by resolving the factual disputes between the parties." ' " Ex parte Safeway, 990 So. 2d at 350 (quoting Lindsey v. United States, 448 F. Supp. 2d 37, 42-43 (D.D.C. 2006), quoting in turn Erby v. United States, 424 F. Supp. 2d 180, 181 (D.D.C. 2006)). 2015In such situations, “the plaintiffs jurisdictional averments are entitled to no presumptive weight; the court must address the merits of the jurisdictional claim by resolving the factual disputes between the parties.” Erby, 424 F.Supp.2d at 181 (internal quotations omitted); see also Mortensen v. First Fed. | 3 | 3 |
Mortensen v. First Federal Savings And Loan Associationgreen2 sentences2026Civ. P.,] motion asserting a factual challenge "must go beyond the pleadings and resolve any disputed issues of fact the resolution of which is necessary to a ruling upon the motion to dismiss." [Phoenix Consulting, Inc. v. Republic of Angola, 216 F.3d 36, 40 (D.C. Cir. 2000).] In such situations, "the plaintiff's jurisdictional averments are entitled to no presumptive weight; the court must address the merits of the jurisdictional claim by resolving the factual disputes between the parties." Erby[ v. United States], 424 F. Supp. 2d [180,] 181 [(D.D.C. 2006)] (internal quotations omitted); see 2026Civ. P.,] motion asserting a factual challenge "must go beyond the pleadings and resolve any disputed issues of fact the resolution of which is necessary to a ruling upon the motion to dismiss." [Phoenix Consulting, Inc. v. Republic of Angola, 216 F.3d 36, 40 (D.C. Cir. 2000).] In such situations, "the plaintiff's jurisdictional averments are entitled to no presumptive weight; the court must address the merits of the jurisdictional claim by resolving the factual disputes between the parties." Erby[ v. United States], 424 F. Supp. 2d [180,] 181 [(D.D.C. 2006)] (internal quotations omitted); see | 2 | 4 |
Phoenix Consulting, Inc. v. Republic of Angolagreen1 sentence2026Civ. P.,] motion asserting a factual challenge "must go beyond the pleadings and resolve any disputed issues of fact the resolution of which is necessary to a ruling upon the motion to dismiss." [Phoenix Consulting, Inc. v. Republic of Angola, 216 F.3d 36, 40 (D.C. Cir. 2000).] In such situations, "the plaintiff's jurisdictional averments are entitled to no presumptive weight; the court must address the merits of the jurisdictional claim by resolving the factual disputes between the parties." Erby[ v. United States], 424 F. Supp. 2d [180,] 181 [(D.D.C. 2006)] (internal quotations omitted); see | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ex Parte Safeway Ins. Co. of Alabama, Inc.
green
1 sentence2026Based on that factual challenge, the juvenile court had to " ' "address the merits of the jurisdictional claim by resolving the factual disputes between the parties." ' " Ex parte Safeway, 990 So. 2d at 350 (quoting Lindsey v. United States, 448 F. Supp. 2d 37, 42-43 (D.D.C. 2006), quoting in turn Erby v. United States, 424 F. Supp. 2d 180, 181 (D.D.C. 2006)). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
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.