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 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ex Parte McLendongreen1 sentence2026See Ex parte McLendon, 455 So. 2d at 865-66 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Regan v. Time, Inc.
green
2 sentences2011Although we recognize that “a court should refrain from invalidating more of the statute than is necessary,” Regan v. Time, Inc., 468 U.S. 641, 652 , 104 S.Ct. 3262 , 82 L.Ed.2d 487 (1984) (plurality opinion), no part of the Act defers to the fundamental right of the parent or to the presumption in favor of a parent’s decisions regarding grandparent visitation. 2011Although we recognize that “a court should refrain from invalidating more of the statute than is necessary,” Regan v. Time, Inc., 468 U.S. 641, 652 , 104 S.Ct. 3262 , 82 L.Ed.2d 487 (1984) (plurality opinion), no part of the Act defers to the fundamental right of the parent or to the presumption in favor of a parent’s decisions regarding grandparent visitation. | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Ex Parte DJ
green
2 sentences2008Id. at 306-07 . 2008Id. at 306-07 . | 2 | 2008–2008 |
E.H.G. v. E.R.G.
green
1 sentence2011The main opinion concludes that the Act is unconstitutional in its entirety because no part of the Act “defers to the fundamental right of the parent or to the presumption in favor of a parent’s decisions regarding grandparent visitation.” 73 So.3d at 650 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.