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.
269 Alabama opinions name it 3 courts 1974–2026 39 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 |
|---|---|---|
Washington v. Stategreen2 sentences2018This Court ' "review[s] the trial court's conclusions of law and its application of law to the facts under the de novo standard of review." ' Id. (quoting Washington v. State , 922 So.2d 145 , 158 (Ala. Crim. 2018This Court ' "review[s] the trial court's conclusions of law and its application of law to the facts under the de novo standard of review." ' Id. (quoting Washington v. State , 922 So.2d 145 , 158 (Ala. Crim. | 21 | 29 |
Carter v. City of Haleyvillegreen2 sentences2025Carter v. City of Haleyville, 669 So. 2d 812, 815 (Ala. 1995). 2024Carter v. City of Haleyville, 669 So. 2d 812, 815 (Ala. 1995). | 19 | 21 |
Hinton v. Stategreen2 sentences2016Additionally, in Ex parte Hinton , 172 So.3d 348 , 353 (Ala.2012), the Alabama Supreme Court held that, when a circuit court's decision in a Rule 32 petition is based solely on the " 'cold trial record,' " it is "in no better position than ... an appellate court to make the determination it made." Therefore, in that situation, the reviewing court should apply a de novo standard of review. 2016Additionally, in Ex parte Hinton , 172 So.3d 348 , 353 (Ala.2012), the Alabama Supreme Court held that, when a circuit court's decision in a Rule 32 petition is based solely on the " 'cold trial record,' " it is "in no better position than ... an appellate court to make the determination it made." Therefore, in that situation, the reviewing court should apply a de novo standard of review. | 11 | 13 |
State v. Hillgreen2 sentences2018State v. Hill , 690 So.2d 1201 , 1203 (Ala. 1996). 2018State v. Hill , 690 So.2d 1201 , 1203 (Ala. 1996). | 11 | 13 |
Espinoza v. Rudolphgreen2 sentences2025This Court ' "review[s] the trial court's conclusions of law and its application of law to the facts under the de novo standard of review." ' Id. (quoting Washington v. State, 922 So. 2d 145, 158 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005))." Espinoza v. Rudolph, 46 So. 3d 403, 412 (Ala. 2010) (emphasis added). 2017"This Court ' "review[s] the trial court's conclusions of law and its application of law to the facts under the de novo standard of review." ' " Espinoza v. Rudolph , 46 So.3d 403 , 412 (Ala. 2010) (quoting Ex parte J.E. , 1 So.3d 1002 , 1008 (Ala. 2008), quoting in turn Washington v. State , 922 So.2d 145 , 158 (Ala. Crim. | 10 | 17 |
Continental Nat. Indem. Co. v. Fieldsgreen2 sentences2026Co. v. Fields, 926 So. 2d 1033, 1035 (Ala. 2005)). 2018Co. v. Fields , 926 So.2d 1033 , 1035 (Ala. 2005). | 9 | 12 |
Hipps v. Lauderdale County Bd. of Educ.green2 sentences2005Williams , 857 So.2d at 151 (citing Hipps v. Lauderdale County Bd. of Educ. , 631 So.2d 1023 , 1025 (Ala.Civ.App. 1993)). 2004See Hipps v. Lauderdale County Bd. of Educ., 631 So.2d 1023, 1025 (Ala.Civ.App.1993).” Menendez v. COLSA, Inc., 852 So.2d 768, 770 (Ala.Civ.App.2002). | 7 | 8 |
George v. Simsgreen2 sentences2011Therefore, the same standard of review applies to both the appeal and the petition: a de novo standard."); George v. Sims, 888 So.2d 1224, 1226 (Ala.2004) ("Because the facts are undisputed and we are presented with pure questions of law, our standard of review is de novo."). 2011Therefore, the same standard of review applies to both the appeal and the petition: a de novo standard.”); George v. Sims, 888 So.2d 1224, 1226 (Ala.2004) (“Because the facts are undisputed and we are presented with pure questions of law, our standard of review is de novo.”). | 6 | 6 |
Harrison v. Morrowgreen2 sentences2025Harrison v. Morrow, 977 So. 2d 457, 459 (Ala. 2007). 2018See Harrison v. Morrow , 977 So.2d 457 , 459 (Ala. 2007). " ' "The law in Alabama regarding the interpretation of wills is well settled: " ' " '[T]he intention of the [testator] is the law of the will, which the court should consider as a whole, giving effect to each provision where it is possible to do so; it is the court's duty to carry out the [testator]'s intention where that intent can be ascertained. | 5 | 5 |
Acra v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Acra v. State, 105 So.3d 460, 464 (Ala. Crim.App.2012). 2014See Acra v. State, 105 So.3d 460, 464 (Ala.Crim.App.2012). | 5 | 5 |
J.A. v. C.M.green2 sentences2016See J.A. v. C.M., 93 So.3d 953, 954 (Ala.Civ.App.2012).’ “J.K. v. Jefferson Cnty. 2014See J.A. v. C.M., 93 So.3d 953, 954 (Ala.Civ.App.2012).’ “J.K. v. Jefferson Cnty. | 4 | 4 |
Stewart v. Stategreen2 sentences2014See also Stewart v. State, 990 So.2d 441, 442 (Ala.Crim.App.2008) (“Where ... an appellate court reviews a trial court’s conclusion of law and its application of law to the facts, it applies a de novo standard of review.”). 2012“Where, as here, an appellate court reviews a trial court’s conclusion of law and its application of law to the facts, it applies a de novo standard of review.” Stewart v. State, 990 So.2d 441, 442 (Ala.Crim.App.2008.) Section 13A-6-110 was repealed after Tennyson was arrested and indicted. | 4 | 4 |
Ex Parte JEgreen2 sentences2017"This Court ' "review[s] the trial court's conclusions of law and its application of law to the facts under the de novo standard of review." ' " Espinoza v. Rudolph , 46 So.3d 403 , 412 (Ala. 2010) (quoting Ex parte J.E. , 1 So.3d 1002 , 1008 (Ala. 2008), quoting in turn Washington v. State , 922 So.2d 145 , 158 (Ala. Crim. 2017"This Court ' "review[s] the trial court's conclusions of law and its application of law to the facts under the de novo standard of review." ' " Espinoza v. Rudolph , 46 So.3d 403 , 412 (Ala. 2010) (quoting Ex parte J.E. , 1 So.3d 1002 , 1008 (Ala. 2008), quoting in turn Washington v. State , 922 So.2d 145 , 158 (Ala. Crim. | 3 | 5 |
Ex Parte Grahamgreen2 sentences2024Ex parte Key, 890 So. 2d 1056, 1059 (Ala. 2003)." ' Ex parte Beckworth, [ 190 So. 3d 571 (Ala. 2013)] (quoting Ex parte Lamb, 113 So. 3d [686] at 689 [Ala. 2011)]). 'Legal conclusions are never accorded a presumption of correctness on appellate review.' Ex parte Cain, 838 So. 2d 1020, 1026 (Ala. 2002) (citing Ex parte Perkins, 646 So. 2d 46, 47 (Ala. 1994)). 'When applying the de novo standard of review, this Court is not obligated to rely on the same analysis as that employed by the trial court.' State v. C.M., 746 So. 2d 410, 414 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999) (citing Ex parte Graham, 702 So. 2d 121 2013“When applying the de novo standard of review, this Court is not obligated to rely on the same analysis as that employed by the trial court.” State v. C.M., 746 So.2d 410 , 414 (Ala.Crim.App.1999) (citing Ex parte Graham, 702 So.2d 1215, 1221 (Ala. 1997)). | 3 | 4 |
Ex Parte Keygreen2 sentences2024Ex parte Key, 890 So. 2d 1056, 1059 (Ala. 2003)." ' Ex parte Beckworth, [ 190 So. 3d 571 (Ala. 2013)] (quoting Ex parte Lamb, 113 So. 3d [686] at 689 [Ala. 2011)]). 'Legal conclusions are never accorded a presumption of correctness on appellate review.' Ex parte Cain, 838 So. 2d 1020, 1026 (Ala. 2002) (citing Ex parte Perkins, 646 So. 2d 46, 47 (Ala. 1994)). 'When applying the de novo standard of review, this Court is not obligated to rely on the same analysis as that employed by the trial court.' State v. C.M., 746 So. 2d 410, 414 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999) (citing Ex parte Graham, 702 So. 2d 121 2015See Sheffield v. State , 194 So.3d 911 , 912 (Ala.2014) (applying a de novo standard of review when determining whether the Court of Criminal Appeals had jurisdiction to consider an *1071 appeal), and Ex parte Walker , 152 So.3d 1247 (Ala.2014) ; see also Ex parte Morrow , 915 So.2d 539 , 541 (Ala.2004) (" 'This Court reviews pure questions of law in criminal cases de novo.' " (quoting Ex parte Key , 890 So.2d 1056 , 1059 (Ala.2003) )). | 3 | 3 |
Robert Burton & Associates, Ltd. v. Morrisgreen2 sentences2017See , e.g. , Ex parte Morris , 999 So.2d 932 , 936 (Ala. 2008). 2013See Ex parte Morris, 999 So.2d 932, 936 (Ala.2008).” J.L.L. v. Jefferson Cnty. | 3 | 3 |
| Menendez v. Colsa, Inc.green | 3 | 3 |
State v. Otwellgreen2 sentences2026(Blakelys' brief at 20.) "In reviewing a decision of a trial court on a motion to suppress evidence, in a case in which the facts are not in dispute, we apply a de novo standard of review." State v. Otwell, 733 So. 2d 950, 952 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999); State v. Cheatwood, 267 So. 3d 882, 884-85 (Ala. Crim. App. 2018). 2003It is well settled that "[i]n reviewing a decision of a trial court on a motion to suppress evidence, in a case in which the facts are not in dispute, we apply a de novo standard of review." State v. Otwell , 733 So.2d 950 , 952 (Ala.Crim.App. 1999). | 2 | 5 |
Patel v. Management Enterprise Development & Services, Inc.green2 sentences2017Therefore, we must apply de novo the standard of review that was applicable in the Court of Civil Appeals.' Ex parte Toyota Motor Corp. , 684 So.2d 132 , 135 (Ala. 1996). 'The law is well established that a de novo standard applies to appellate review of a trial court's summary judgment.' Ex parte Patel , 988 So.2d 957 , 959 (Ala. 2007) (citing Ex parte Fort James Operating Co. , 895 So.2d 294 (Ala. 2004) )." Ex parte City of Mobile , 37 So.3d 150 , 152 (Ala. 2009). 2017"The law is well established that a de novo standard applies to appellate review of a trial court's summary judgment." Ex parte Patel , 988 So.2d 957 , 959 (Ala. 2007). | 2 | 5 |
Smith v. MADISON COUNTY COM'Ngreen2 sentences2005Citing Smith v. Madison County Commission, 658 So.2d 422 , 423 n. 1 (Ala.1995), the Supreme Court in TFT, Inc., therefore, applied a de novo standard of review. . . . 2003Citing Smith v. Madison County Commission, 658 So.2d 422 , 423 n. 1 (Ala.1995), the Supreme Court in TFT, Inc., therefore applied a de novo standard of review. | 2 | 4 |
Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Austingreen2 sentences2017P.,] a de novo standard of review is applied. ‘This is so because the issue of jurisdiction raised in a Rule 60(b)(4) motion is a purely legal one.’ Id. 2012She relies on the principle that issues of law brought before a trial court in a Rule 60(b) motion are reviewed under a de novo standard, and she cites in support of her argument Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Austin, 34 So.3d 1238, 1241-42 (Ala.2009). | 2 | 3 |
Ex Parte Whitegreen2 sentences2014Ex parte White, 792 So.2d 1097, 1098 (Ala.2001); Brown v. State, 850 So.2d 1261, 1263 (Ala.Crim.App.2002). 2002We agree with Rumpel that the de novo standard of review applies: "[W]hen the facts are undisputed and an appellate court is presented with pure questions of law, the court's review in a Rule 32 proceeding is de novo ." Ex parte White , 792 So.2d 1097 , 1098 (Ala. 2001). | 2 | 3 |
| B.J.C. v. Stategreen | 2 | 3 |
| White Sands Group, LLC v. PRS II, LLCgreen | 2 | 2 |
| ARCHER EX REL. ARCHER v. Estate of Archergreen | 2 | 2 |
| Alabama Recycling Ass'n v. City of Montgomerygreen | 2 | 2 |
| Bush v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
| Bay Lines, Inc. v. Stoughton Trailers, Inc.green | 2 | 2 |
| Bailey v. City of Raglandgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Sheffield v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
| Regions Bank v. Reedgreen | 2 | 2 |
| City of Mobile v. Simpsiridisgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Bishop State Community College v. Williamsgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Chambers v. DIRECTOR OF DEPT., ETC.green | 2 | 2 |
| STATE, DEPT. OF REVENUE v. Arnoldgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Medical Services Administration v. Dukegreen | 2 | 2 |
| Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers Local No. 391 v. Terrygreen | 2 | 2 |
Barnes v. Stategreen2 sentences2004See State v. Hill, 690 So.2d 1201 (Ala.1996), and Barnes v. State, 704 So.2d 487 (Ala.Crim.App.1997). 2003See also State v. Hill , 690 So.2d 1201 (Ala. 1996); Tuohy v. State , 776 So.2d 896 (Ala.Crim.App. 1999); and Barnes v. State , 704 So.2d 487 (Ala.Crim.App. 1997). | 1 | 5 |
Terry v. Ohiogreen2 sentences2010See State v. Skaggs, 903 So.2d 180, 181 (Ala.Crim.App.2004) (“This Court reviews de novo a circuit court’s decision on a motion to suppress evidence when the facts are not in dispute.”). “[Bjecause a routine traffic stop is a limited form of seizure, it is analogous to an investigative detention, and we have therefore held that a traffic stop will be governed by the standard set forth in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 [ (1968) ].” J.T.C. v. State, 990 So.2d 444, 447 (Ala.Crim.App.2008). “ ‘Terry sets up a two-prong test of the reasonableness of investigatory detentions and weapons searches. 2010See State v. Skaggs, 903 So.2d 180, 181 (Ala. Crim.App.2004) ("This Court reviews de novo a circuit court's decision on a motion to suppress evidence when the facts are not in dispute."). "[B]ecause a routine traffic stop is a limited form of seizure, it is analogous to an investigative detention, and we have therefore held that a traffic stop will be governed by the standard set forth in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 [(1968)]." J.T.C. v. State, 990 So.2d 444, 447 (Ala.Crim.App. 2008). "` Terry sets up a two-prong test of the reasonableness of investigatory detentions and weapons searches. | 1 | 4 |
Walker v. Stategreen2 sentences2016See also Sheffield v. State, 194 So.3d 911, 912 (Ala.2014) (applying a de novo standard of review when determining whether the Court of Criminal Appeals had jurisdiction to consider an appeal); Ex parte Walker, 152 So.3d 1247 (Ala.2014) (to same effect). 2016See also Sheffield v. State , 890 So.3d 1056 , 1059 (Ala.2014) (applying a de novo standard of review when determining whether the Court of Criminal Appeals had jurisdiction to consider an appeal); Ex parte Walker , 152 So.3d 1247 (Ala.2014) (to same effect). | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Eubanks v. Hale
green
2 sentences2018This Court ' "review[s] the trial court's conclusions of law and its application of law to the facts under the de novo standard of review." ' Id. (quoting Washington v. State , 922 So.2d 145 , 158 (Ala. Crim. 2018This Court ' "review[s] the trial court's conclusions of law and its application of law to the facts under the de novo standard of review." ' Id. (quoting Washington v. State , 922 So.2d 145 , 158 (Ala. Crim. | 10 | 2010–2018 |
Ex Parte Fort James Operating Co.
green
2 sentences2017Therefore, we must apply de novo the standard of review that was applicable in the Court of Civil Appeals.' Ex parte Toyota Motor Corp. , 684 So.2d 132 , 135 (Ala. 1996). 'The law is well established that a de novo standard applies to appellate review of a trial court's summary judgment.' Ex parte Patel , 988 So.2d 957 , 959 (Ala. 2007) (citing Ex parte Fort James Operating Co. , 895 So.2d 294 (Ala. 2004) )." Ex parte City of Mobile , 37 So.3d 150 , 152 (Ala. 2009). 2009“The law is well established that a de novo standard applies to appellate review of a trial court’s summary judgment.” Ex parte Patel, 988 So.2d 957 , 959 (Ala.2007) (citing Ex parte Fort James Operating Co., 895 So.2d 294 (Ala.2004)). lí Analysis Before April 29, 1986, § 11-51-91 provided, in pertinent part: “Any city or town within the state of Alabama may fix and collect licenses for any business, trade or profession done within the police jurisdiction of such city or town but outside the corporate limits thereof; provided, that the amount of such licenses shall not be more than one half th | 4 | 2007–2017 |
BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore
green
2 sentences2014I reiterate here what I said in Boudreaux, 108 So.3d at 513 n. 20 (Murdock, J., dissenting): “The main opinion applies a de novo standard of review to the challenge to the punitive-damages award made under state law, see Hammond v. City of Gadsden, 493 So.2d 1374 (Ala.1986), Green Oil, supra, as well to the challenge made based upon the United States Supreme Court’s decision in BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 , 116 S.Ct. 1589 , 134 L.Ed.2d 809 (1996). 108 So.3d at 504 . 2014I reiterate here what I said in Boudreaux, 108 So.3d at 513 n. 20 (Murdock, J., dissenting): “The main opinion applies a de novo standard of review to the challenge to the punitive-damages award made under state law, see Hammond v. City of Gadsden, 493 So.2d 1374 (Ala.1986), Green Oil, supra, as well to the challenge made based upon the United States Supreme Court’s decision in BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 , 116 S.Ct. 1589 , 134 L.Ed.2d 809 (1996). 108 So.3d at 504 . | 4 | 2001–2014 |
Patrick Home Center, Inc. v. Karr
green
2 sentences2000Crimson Industries, Inc. v. Kirkland , 736 So.2d 597 (Ala. 1999); Patrick Home Center, Inc. v. Karr , 730 So.2d 1171 (Ala. 1999)." First American Title Ins. 1999Id. | 4 | 1999–2000 |
Florida v. JL
green
2 sentences2009“In B.J.C. v. State, 992 So.2d 90 (Ala.Crim.App.2008), this court cited Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000), in which the United States Supreme Court reiterated the standard to be applied in a ‘stop and frisk’ situation. “ ‘ “Our ‘stop and frisk’ decisions begin with Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). 2008In B.J.C. v. State, 992 So.2d 90, 91 (Ala.Crim.App.2008), this court cited Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 , 120 S.Ct. 1375 , 146 L.Ed.2d 254 , (2000), in which the United States Supreme Court reiterated the standard to be applied in a “stop and frisk” situation. “ ‘Our “stop and frisk” decisions begin with Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). | 3 | 2008–2009 |
| TFT, Inc. v. WARNING SYSTEMS, INC. red | 3 | 2003–2008 |
| Tuohy v. State green | 3 | 2002–2004 |
| Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc. green | 3 | 2001–2003 |
| L.B.S. v. L.M.S. green | 2 | 2018–2018 |
| Green Oil Co. v. Hornsby green | 2 | 2012–2014 |
| Hammond v. City of Gadsden green | 2 | 2012–2014 |
| Cougar Min. Co. v. MINERAL LAND & MIN. CONSULT. INC. neutral | 2 | 2010–2014 |
| Provident Life and Cas. Co., Inc. v. Crean neutral | 2 | 2004–2009 |
| Slaughter v. Martin green | 2 | 1981–2009 |
| Board of School Commissioners v. Dunn green | 2 | 2007–2007 |
| Acceptance Ins. Co. v. Brown green | 2 | 2001–2003 |
| Graham v. Community Action Agency of North Central Alabama, Inc. neutral | 2 | 1999–1999 |
| Taylor v. Cox green | 2 | 1999–1999 |
| Katz v. Alabama State Bd. of Medical Examiners green | 2 | 1985–1996 |
| Anthony v. Texaco, Inc. green | 2 | 1992–1992 |
| Daniel v. Eaton Corp. green | 2 | 1992–1992 |
| Daniel v. Eaton Corp. green | 2 | 1992–1992 |
| Benjamin Nevill E.H. Bruist J.W. Books T.D. Imgrund J.A. Pryor G.M. Webster v. Shell Oil Company green | 2 | 1992–1992 |
| Emil B. Bair v. General Motors Corporation green | 2 | 1992–1992 |
| Chapman v. Board of Adjustment of City of Mobile neutral | 2 | 1986–1986 |
| BD. OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT, ETC. v. Warren green | 2 | 1984–1985 |
| Allstate Ins. Co. v. Skelton green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| Mitzi LAWSON v. HARRIS CULINARY ENTERPRISES, LLC green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.