purpose of the notice requirement (Alabama) · Go Syfert
← Alabama issues

purpose of the notice requirement in Alabama

5 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2023 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Cox v. City of Birminghamgreen
ala · 1987 · cited in 2 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2008–2023
2 sentences

2023The purpose of the notice requirement is to furnish a municipality with 'sufficient physical details' of the incident to 'enable the 6 CL-2023-0392 [municipality] to investigate the claim and settle with the claimant if it deems such action appropriate.' Cox v. City of Birmingham, 518 So. 2d 1262, 1264 (Ala. 1987) (citing Hunnicutt v. City of Tuscaloosa, 337 So. 2d 346 (Ala. 1976))." In the present case, Frosch mailed her affidavit-of-claim form to the address supplied by the City on the affidavit-of-claim form.

2008The purpose of the notice requirement is to furnish a municipality with "sufficient physical details" of the incident to "enable the [municipality] to investigate the claim and settle with the claimant if it deems such action appropriate." Cox v. City of Birmingham , 518 So.2d 1262 , 1264 (Ala. 1987) (citing Hunnicutt v. City of Tuscaloosa , 337 So.2d 346 (Ala. 1976)).

12

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (6)

CaseCitedYears
Hunnicutt v. City of Tuscaloosa green
ala · 1976
2 sentences

2023The purpose of the notice requirement is to furnish a municipality with 'sufficient physical details' of the incident to 'enable the 6 CL-2023-0392 [municipality] to investigate the claim and settle with the claimant if it deems such action appropriate.' Cox v. City of Birmingham, 518 So. 2d 1262, 1264 (Ala. 1987) (citing Hunnicutt v. City of Tuscaloosa, 337 So. 2d 346 (Ala. 1976))." In the present case, Frosch mailed her affidavit-of-claim form to the address supplied by the City on the affidavit-of-claim form.

2008The purpose of the notice requirement is to furnish a municipality with "sufficient physical details" of the incident to "enable the [municipality] to investigate the claim and settle with the claimant if it deems such action appropriate." Cox v. City of Birmingham , 518 So.2d 1262 , 1264 (Ala. 1987) (citing Hunnicutt v. City of Tuscaloosa , 337 So.2d 346 (Ala. 1976)).

22008–2023
Perry v. City of Birmingham green
ala · 2005
1 sentence

2023In Perry v. City of Birmingham, 906 So. 2d 174 (Ala. 2005), our supreme court held that an injured pedestrian's mailing of a notice of the pedestrian's claim against the City did not constitute "filing" the claim with the city clerk, for purposes of complying with § 11-47-23 and § 11-47-192.

12023–2023
Ex Parte Brown & Root, Inc. green
ala · 1998
1 sentence

2002The purpose of the notice requirement of § 25-5-78 is to enable the employer to "`make a prompt examination, provide proper treatment, and protect itself against simulated or exaggerated claims.'" Ex parte Brown Root, Inc ., 726 So.2d 601 , 602 (Ala. 1998), quoting Russell Coal Co. v. Williams , 550 So.2d 1007 , 1012 (Ala.Civ.App. 1989).

12002–2002
Russell Coal Co. v. Williams green
alacivapp · 1989
1 sentence

2002The purpose of the notice requirement of § 25-5-78 is to enable the employer to "`make a prompt examination, provide proper treatment, and protect itself against simulated or exaggerated claims.'" Ex parte Brown Root, Inc ., 726 So.2d 601 , 602 (Ala. 1998), quoting Russell Coal Co. v. Williams , 550 So.2d 1007 , 1012 (Ala.Civ.App. 1989).

12002–2002
Gold Kist, Inc. v. Dumas green
alacivapp · 1983
1 sentence

1994Gold Kist, Inc. v. Dumas , 442 So.2d 115 (Ala.Civ.App. 1983).

11994–1994
Wallace v. Board of Revenue of Jefferson County green
ala · 1903
1 sentence

1985Of course, the purpose of the notice requirement is to prevent the deception of those most directly affected by the proposed law and to allow those opposed to the bill "to protest against and oppose its enactment." Wallace v. Board of Revenue of Jefferson County , 140 Ala. 491 , 502 , 37 So. 321 , 323 (1904).

11985–1985

Where else courts name it

TX 157 (1972–2026) MI 51 (1973–2025) IN 41 (1984–2025) NY 35 (1976–2024) CT 31 (1987–2016) IL 30 (1977–2025) OH 26 (1993–2026) MD 21 (1976–2022) PA 19 (1974–2024) GA 17 (1972–2012) CA 16 (1943–2025) TN 16 (2001–2018) FL 14 (1986–2024) MO 13 (1972–2024) OK 12 (1983–2020) MT 11 (1977–2008) LA 10 (1986–2021) MN 9 (1955–2016) NM 8 (1971–2015) VI 8 (1987–2026) NJ 8 (1985–2026) NC 7 (1980–2022) OR 7 (1979–2026) IA 7 (1973–2020) RI 7 (1986–2011) UT 6 (1985–2012) CO 6 (1979–2024) ID 5 (1986–2020) VA 5 (1997–2025) SD 5 (1989–2000) AL 5 (1985–2023) ME 5 (1986–2020) AZ 4 (1985–2003) WI 4 (1950–1996) WY 4 (1981–2024) WA 3 (1989–1996) KY 3 (2000–2026) WV 3 (1997–2025) AR 3 (1987–1993) MS 3 (2010–2017) KS 2 (1987–1996) NE 2 (1993–2003) ND 2 (2005–2020)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check