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 1910–2012 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rodgers v. Hoppergreen1 sentence2012Rodgers v. Hopper, 768 So.2d 963, 968 (Ala.2000) (holding that [A]DOC is entitled to sovereign immunity under § 14, because a judgment against it would be paid from the treasury of the State).” Thus, ADOC and Thomas, in his capacity as commissioner of ADOC, are generally entitled to rely on the shield of State immunity provided by § 14. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Richard A. Horngreen1 sentence2005See also United States v. Horn , 29 F.3d 754 , 765-66 (1st Cir.1994) ("The straw that snaps the camel's back is that the appellees have offered no plausible explanation why the shield of immunity should leave the government exposed to fee awards designed as sanctions for litigation abuse, but simultaneously protect it from fees or other monetary awards routinely given to prevailing parties as virtual bonuses to reward litigatory success. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
cluster 251279
green
1 sentence1972Baird v. Koerner, 9 Cir., 279 F.2d 623 , 95 A.L.R.2d 303, 314 . | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Baird v. Koerner
green
1 sentence1972Baird v. Koerner, 9 Cir., 279 F.2d 623 , 95 A.L.R.2d 303, 314 . | 1 | 1972–1972 |
People ex rel. Livers v. Hanson
green
2 sentences1972Livers v. Hanson, 290 Ill. 370 , 125 N.E. 268, 270 . “[4] The shield of privilege sometimes runs counter to the law’s great purpose to ascertain the truth. 1972Livers v. Hanson, 290 Ill. 370 , 125 N.E. 268, 270 . “[4] The shield of privilege sometimes runs counter to the law’s great purpose to ascertain the truth. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Walker County v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland
neutral
2 sentences1916Law, 539; Walker County v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 107 Fed. 851 , 47 C. 1916Law, 539; Walker County v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 107 Fed. 851 , 47 C. | 1 | 1916–1916 |
Lookout Mountain Iron Co. v. Lea
neutral
2 sentences1910Obviously one of the legally imposed duties was that of using due care to employ a reasonably skillful and competent engineer or hoister to handle the “hoisting .drum and cable.” — Walker v. Bolling, 22 Ala. 294 ; Lookout Mountain, etc., Co. v. Lea, 144 Ala. 169 , 39 South. 1017 . 1910Obviously one of the legally imposed duties was that of using due care to employ a reasonably skillful and competent engineer or hoister to handle the “hoisting .drum and cable.” — Walker v. Bolling, 22 Ala. 294 ; Lookout Mountain, etc., Co. v. Lea, 144 Ala. 169 , 39 South. 1017 . | 1 | 1910–1910 |
Walker v. Bolling
green
1 sentence1910Obviously one of the legally imposed duties was that of using due care to employ a reasonably skillful and competent engineer or hoister to handle the “hoisting .drum and cable.” — Walker v. Bolling, 22 Ala. 294 ; Lookout Mountain, etc., Co. v. Lea, 144 Ala. 169 , 39 South. 1017 . | 1 | 1910–1910 |
Campbell v. Lunsford
neutral
1 sentence1910In this state of the case it seems clear, both on reason and authority, that whilst there ivas no privity of contract between plaintiff and defendant, and therefore no contractual duty owing from the defendant to the plaintiff in the premises, still the law imposed upon the defendant certain duties towards the plaintiff, for a breach of which, with damnifying consequences to plaintiff, the defendant cannot as a shield and defense hide behind a contract between it and another person. — 1 Sherman & Bedf. on Neg. § 116; 1 Dresser’s Employer’s Liability, § 83, pp. 363-370; Campbell v. Lunsford, 83 | 1 | 1910–1910 |
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.