5 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
North Alabama Express, Inc. v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2025The operative test is that " 'the notice as published must reasonably apprise any interested person of the issues involved in the proceeding.' " 19 CL-2025-0262 North Alabama Express, Inc. v. United States, 585 F.2d 783, 787 (5th Cir. 1978) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Real Estate - Land Title & Trust Co. v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2009Co., 283 U.S. 269, 272 , 51 S.Ct. 376 , 75 L.Ed. 1025 [(1931)], Real Estate-Land, Title & Trust Co. v. United States, 309 U.S. 13, 6 [0] S.Ct. 371, 84 L.Ed. 542 [ (1940) ]; Snead v. Elmore, 5 Cir., 59 F.2d 312 [ (1932) ]; Edwards v. Malley, 1 Cir., 109 F.2d 640, 645 [ (1940) ]; Dascomb v. McCuen, 2 Cir., 73 F.2d 417, 418, 419 [ (1934) ]; Taber v. United States, 8 Cir., 59 F.2d 568 [ (1932) ]; H. 2009Co., 283 U.S. 269, 272 , 51 S.Ct. 376 , 75 L.Ed. 1025 [(1931)], Real Estate-Land, Title & Trust Co. v. United States, 309 U.S. 13, 6 [0] S.Ct. 371, 84 L.Ed. 542 [ (1940) ]; Snead v. Elmore, 5 Cir., 59 F.2d 312 [ (1932) ]; Edwards v. Malley, 1 Cir., 109 F.2d 640, 645 [ (1940) ]; Dascomb v. McCuen, 2 Cir., 73 F.2d 417, 418, 419 [ (1934) ]; Taber v. United States, 8 Cir., 59 F.2d 568 [ (1932) ]; H. | 1 | 1 |
Dascomb v. McCuengreen1 sentence2009Co., 283 U.S. 269, 272 , 51 S.Ct. 376 , 75 L.Ed. 1025 [(1931)], Real Estate-Land, Title & Trust Co. v. United States, 309 U.S. 13, 6 [0] S.Ct. 371, 84 L.Ed. 542 [ (1940) ]; Snead v. Elmore, 5 Cir., 59 F.2d 312 [ (1932) ]; Edwards v. Malley, 1 Cir., 109 F.2d 640, 645 [ (1940) ]; Dascomb v. McCuen, 2 Cir., 73 F.2d 417, 418, 419 [ (1934) ]; Taber v. United States, 8 Cir., 59 F.2d 568 [ (1932) ]; H. | 1 | 1 |
Edwards v. Malleygreen1 sentence2009Co., 283 U.S. 269, 272 , 51 S.Ct. 376 , 75 L.Ed. 1025 [(1931)], Real Estate-Land, Title & Trust Co. v. United States, 309 U.S. 13, 6 [0] S.Ct. 371, 84 L.Ed. 542 [ (1940) ]; Snead v. Elmore, 5 Cir., 59 F.2d 312 [ (1932) ]; Edwards v. Malley, 1 Cir., 109 F.2d 640, 645 [ (1940) ]; Dascomb v. McCuen, 2 Cir., 73 F.2d 417, 418, 419 [ (1934) ]; Taber v. United States, 8 Cir., 59 F.2d 568 [ (1932) ]; H. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Felt & Tarrant Manufacturing Co.
green
2 sentences2009Co., 283 U.S. 269, 272 , 51 S.Ct. 376 , 75 L.Ed. 1025 [(1931)], Real Estate-Land, Title & Trust Co. v. United States, 309 U.S. 13, 6 [0] S.Ct. 371, 84 L.Ed. 542 [ (1940) ]; Snead v. Elmore, 5 Cir., 59 F.2d 312 [ (1932) ]; Edwards v. Malley, 1 Cir., 109 F.2d 640, 645 [ (1940) ]; Dascomb v. McCuen, 2 Cir., 73 F.2d 417, 418, 419 [ (1934) ]; Taber v. United States, 8 Cir., 59 F.2d 568 [ (1932) ]; H. 2009Co., 283 U.S. 269, 272 , 51 S.Ct. 376 , 75 L.Ed. 1025 [(1931)], Real Estate-Land, Title & Trust Co. v. United States, 309 U.S. 13, 6 [0] S.Ct. 371, 84 L.Ed. 542 [ (1940) ]; Snead v. Elmore, 5 Cir., 59 F.2d 312 [ (1932) ]; Edwards v. Malley, 1 Cir., 109 F.2d 640, 645 [ (1940) ]; Dascomb v. McCuen, 2 Cir., 73 F.2d 417, 418, 419 [ (1934) ]; Taber v. United States, 8 Cir., 59 F.2d 568 [ (1932) ]; H. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Taber v. United States
green
1 sentence2009Co., 283 U.S. 269, 272 , 51 S.Ct. 376 , 75 L.Ed. 1025 [(1931)], Real Estate-Land, Title & Trust Co. v. United States, 309 U.S. 13, 6 [0] S.Ct. 371, 84 L.Ed. 542 [ (1940) ]; Snead v. Elmore, 5 Cir., 59 F.2d 312 [ (1932) ]; Edwards v. Malley, 1 Cir., 109 F.2d 640, 645 [ (1940) ]; Dascomb v. McCuen, 2 Cir., 73 F.2d 417, 418, 419 [ (1934) ]; Taber v. United States, 8 Cir., 59 F.2d 568 [ (1932) ]; H. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Snead v. Elmore
green
1 sentence2009Co., 283 U.S. 269, 272 , 51 S.Ct. 376 , 75 L.Ed. 1025 [(1931)], Real Estate-Land, Title & Trust Co. v. United States, 309 U.S. 13, 6 [0] S.Ct. 371, 84 L.Ed. 542 [ (1940) ]; Snead v. Elmore, 5 Cir., 59 F.2d 312 [ (1932) ]; Edwards v. Malley, 1 Cir., 109 F.2d 640, 645 [ (1940) ]; Dascomb v. McCuen, 2 Cir., 73 F.2d 417, 418, 419 [ (1934) ]; Taber v. United States, 8 Cir., 59 F.2d 568 [ (1932) ]; H. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Ingalls Iron Works Co. v. Ingalls
green
2 sentences2007Put another way, the recital describes a state of facts wholly inconsistent with any subsequent assignment of Nancy's contingent remainder interest to create a situation whereby, even if she survived Edith and the Russell Trust at that time held shares of Russell Lands, Inc., she would not receive a distribution of shares of stock in Russell Lands, Inc. Returning to Ingalls , in which the language of the operative clause conferring broad authority to exercise the option was more comprehensive than the recital, referring to retirement as the occasion for the exercise of the option during Junior 2007Put another way, the recital describes a state of facts wholly inconsistent with any subsequent assignment of Nancy's contingent remainder interest to create a situation whereby, even if she survived Edith and the Russell Trust at that time held shares of Russell Lands, Inc., she would not receive a distribution of shares of stock in Russell Lands, Inc. Returning to Ingalls , in which the language of the operative clause conferring broad authority to exercise the option was more comprehensive than the recital, referring to retirement as the occasion for the exercise of the option during Junior | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Ex Parte State Dept. of Human Resources
green
1 sentence2007In fact, the court cited the two-prong Beasley standard as the operative rule regarding the burden of proof in termination-of-parental-rights actions initiated by state agencies. 624 So.2d at 952-953 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
cluster 373418
green
1 sentence1982As so aptly stated by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, "we feel it inappropriate to import the article 2 definition into article 9 without more explicit statutory authority." Martin Marietta Corp. v. New Jersey National Bank, supra. Moreover, our review of the record reveals that even under the stricter good faith test proposed by the bank, Frank Davis Buick would take the jeep as a buyer in the ordinary course of business. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.