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 1 courts 1920–2002 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wilko v. Swan
red
2 sentences1987Absent a well-founded claim that an arbitration agreement resulted from the sort of fraud or excessive economic power that 'would provide grounds "for the revocation of any contract," ' ibid., the Arbitration Act 'provides no basis for disfavoring agreements to arbitrate statutory *Page 1370 claims by skewing the otherwise hospitable inquiry into arbitrability.' Ibid. 1987Absent a well-founded claim that an arbitration agreement resulted from the sort of fraud or excessive economic power that ‘would provide grounds “for the revocation of any contract.” ’ ibid., the Arbitration Act ‘provides no basis for disfavoring agreements to arbitrate statutory claims by skewing the otherwise hospitable inquiry into arbitrability.’ Ibid. | 3 | 1987–1987 |
McBrayer v. Hokes Bluff Auto Parts
green
1 sentence2002However, `since the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure are modeled on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, federal decisions are highly persuasive when we are called upon to construe the Alabama rules.' McBrayer v. Hokes Bluff Auto Parts , 685 So.2d 763 , 765 (Ala.Civ.App. 1996) (quoting City of Birmingham v. City of Fairfield , 396 So.2d 692 , 696 (Ala. 1981)). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
City of Birmingham v. City of Fairfield
green
1 sentence2002However, `since the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure are modeled on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, federal decisions are highly persuasive when we are called upon to construe the Alabama rules.' McBrayer v. Hokes Bluff Auto Parts , 685 So.2d 763 , 765 (Ala.Civ.App. 1996) (quoting City of Birmingham v. City of Fairfield , 396 So.2d 692 , 696 (Ala. 1981)). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Everage v. State
neutral
1 sentence1920Since the defendant was shown to have been present on these occasions, the well-founded doctrine illustrated in Everage v. State, 113 Ala. 102 , 21 South. 404 , relied on as the basis of this particular objection, was not applicable, and the trial court did not err with respect to that doctrine >vhen referred to those particular occasions. | 1 | 1920–1920 |
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.