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 3 courts 1990–2010 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 |
|---|---|---|
Matter of Sheffieldgreen2 sentences2008See In re Sheffield, 465 So.2d 350, 357 (Ala.1984) (“As stated in Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Ethics, ‘An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society,’ and this requires avoiding all appearance of impropriety, even to the point of resolving all reasonable doubt in favor of recusal.”). 2008See In re Sheffield, 465 So.2d 350, 357 (Ala.1984) ("As stated in Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Ethics, `An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society,' and this requires avoiding all appearance of impropriety, even to the point of resolving all reasonable doubt in favor of recusal."). | 1 | 1 |
Acromag-Viking v. Blalockgreen2 sentences2008See Smith v. Clark, 468 So.2d 138 (Ala.1985) (a motion seeking relief from judgment based on the possible bias of the trial judge was one filed pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6)); and Acromag-Viking v. Blalock, 420 So.2d 60, 61 (Ala.1982) (same). “ ‘The decision to grant or deny a Rule 60(b)(6) motion is within the discretion of the trial judge. 2008See Smith v. Clark, 468 So.2d 138 (Ala.1985) (a motion seeking relief from judgment based on the possible bias of the trial judge was one filed pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6)); and Acromag-Viking v. Blalock, 420 So.2d 60, 61 (Ala.1982) (same). "`The decision to grant or deny a Rule 60(b)(6) motion is within the discretion of the trial judge. | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Clarkgreen2 sentences2008See Smith v. Clark, 468 So.2d 138 (Ala.1985) (a motion seeking relief from judgment based on the possible bias of the trial judge was one filed pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6)); and Acromag-Viking v. Blalock, 420 So.2d 60, 61 (Ala.1982) (same). “ ‘The decision to grant or deny a Rule 60(b)(6) motion is within the discretion of the trial judge. 2008See Smith v. Clark, 468 So.2d 138 (Ala.1985) (a motion seeking relief from judgment based on the possible bias of the trial judge was one filed pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6)); and Acromag-Viking v. Blalock, 420 So.2d 60, 61 (Ala.1982) (same). "`The decision to grant or deny a Rule 60(b)(6) motion is within the discretion of the trial judge. | 1 | 1 |
Bailey v. Hogggreen2 sentences1990We note Williams's argument that Price's instruction to Johnson not to use the available safety devices to disengage the baler, along with the written instructions on the baling machine not to cut off the machine without permission, rendered unavailable the safety devices that cut the power to the baling machine and therefore "removed those safety devices in violation of § 25-5-11(c)(2)." Williams attempts to equate these instructions with the willful and intentional removal of, or failure to install, a safety guard found in Bailey v. Hogg, 547 So.2d 498, 500 (Ala.1989), in which the Court hel 1990We note Williams's argument that Price's instruction to Johnson not to use the available safety devices to disengage the baler, along with the written instructions on the baling machine not to cut off the machine without permission, rendered unavailable the safety devices that cut the power to the baling machine and therefore "removed those safety devices in violation of § 25-5-11 (c)(2)." Williams attempts to equate these instructions with the willful and intentional removal of, or failure to install, a safety guard found in Bailey v. Hogg , 547 So.2d 498 , 500 (Ala. 1989), in which the Court | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mason and Dixon Lines, Inc. v. Byrd
green
1 sentence2010The special master concluded that Northcut’s “but for” damages model was accurate with regard to the facts and circumstances as they existed during the APA year. 7 In essence, the special master concluded that Bentley proved its lost-profits damages with reasonable cei'tainty for the first year of the APA. “[A] plaintiff attempting to establish damages in a breach of contract action need only ‘“lay a foundation which will enable the trier of the facts to make a fair and reasonable estimate of the amount of damage.” ’ ” Mason & Dixon Lines, 601 So.2d at 70 -71 (quoting United Bonding Ins. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Ex Parte WJ
green
2 sentences2008J.Z., supra, Ex parte W.J., supra, and Pittman v. Pittman, supra, for determining whether a Rule 60(b) motion was filed within a reasonable time, we must hold that Price’s motion was not filed within a reasonable time and, therefore, that Price has failed to demonstrate that the trial court erred in denying his March 12, 2008, request for relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) on that basis. 2008J.Z., supra, Ex parte W.J., supra, and Pittman v. Pittman, supra, for determining whether a Rule 60(b) motion was filed within a reasonable time, we must hold that Price's motion was not filed within a reasonable time and, therefore, that Price has failed to demonstrate that the trial court erred in denying his March 12, 2008, request for relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) on that basis. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Pittman v. Pittman
green
2 sentences2008J.Z., supra, Ex parte W.J., supra, and Pittman v. Pittman, supra, for determining whether a Rule 60(b) motion was filed within a reasonable time, we must hold that Price’s motion was not filed within a reasonable time and, therefore, that Price has failed to demonstrate that the trial court erred in denying his March 12, 2008, request for relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) on that basis. 2008J.Z., supra, Ex parte W.J., supra, and Pittman v. Pittman, supra, for determining whether a Rule 60(b) motion was filed within a reasonable time, we must hold that Price's motion was not filed within a reasonable time and, therefore, that Price has failed to demonstrate that the trial court erred in denying his March 12, 2008, request for relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) on that basis. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Ex Parte State Ex Rel. J.Z.
green
2 sentences2008J.Z., supra, Ex parte W.J., supra, and Pittman v. Pittman, supra, for determining whether a Rule 60(b) motion was filed within a reasonable time, we must hold that Price’s motion was not filed within a reasonable time and, therefore, that Price has failed to demonstrate that the trial court erred in denying his March 12, 2008, request for relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) on that basis. 2008J.Z., supra, Ex parte W.J., supra, and Pittman v. Pittman, supra, for determining whether a Rule 60(b) motion was filed within a reasonable time, we must hold that Price's motion was not filed within a reasonable time and, therefore, that Price has failed to demonstrate that the trial court erred in denying his March 12, 2008, request for relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) on that basis. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences1998On appeal, Price contends that both statements should have been suppressed because, he says: (1) with regard to both of the statements, the State failed to adequately demonstrate that the law enforcement authorities had properly advised him of his Miranda rights (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 *Page 1067 (1966)) before questioning him; and (2) the Tennessee statement was the product of an improper inducement. 1998On appeal, Price contends that both statements should have been suppressed because, he says: (1) with regard to both of the statements, the State failed to adequately demonstrate that the law enforcement authorities had properly advised him of his Miranda rights (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 *Page 1067 (1966)) before questioning him; and (2) the Tennessee statement was the product of an improper inducement. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Ex Parte Spears
green
1 sentence1997Spears , supra. Further, even if mandamus was appropriate on Price's claim as to the motion to continue, his claim is rendered moot because the proceedings were in fact stayed pending disposition of this petition. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.