Case law

Maxwell v. City of Birmingham

271 Ala. 570 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Jan 12, 1961

In O’Bar v. … Cavu Club v. City of Birmingham, [269] Ala. [46], 110 So.2d 307 ; City of Birmingham v. Bollas, 209 Ala. 512 , 96 So. 591 ; Richardson v. Reese, 165 Tenn. 661 , 57 S.W.2d 797 ; Friedland v.

League of Women Voters v. Renfro

292 Ala. 128 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Feb 14, 1974

Abramson v. Hard, 229 Ala. 2 , 155 So. 590 ; State v. Morrow, 276 Ala. 385 , 162 So.2d 480 . … Mitchell v. McGuire, 244 Ala. 73 , 12 So.2d 180 ; Birmingham Paper Co. v.

Kimbrell v. City of Bessemer

380 So. 2d 838 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Feb 22, 1980

Hendricks v. Blake , 291 Ala. 575 , 285 So.2d 82 (1973); Lackland v. Turner , 207 Ala. 73 , 91 So. 877 (1921). In Industrial Savings Bank v. … It is a general rule that city boards of this nature speak through their minutes. The minutes are the best evidence of official action taken by the board. Town of Clanton v.

City of Montgomery v. JYD Intern., Inc.

534 So. 2d 592 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Sep 23, 1988

In Brown Mechanical Contractors, Inc. v. Centennial Ins. … (Emphasis added in Brown Mechanical Contractors, Inc.) 431 So.2d at 945 . In Brown Mechanical Contractors, Inc., we cited the test recognized in Industrial Tile, Inc. v.

Robinson v. Richards

45 Ala. 354 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Jan 15, 1871

In Witticks, Adm’r, v. … As the verdict is right, we will amend the judgment by striking out the words “ at his election,” on the authority of Brown v. Brown, 5 Ala. 508 . The judgment is affirmed.

Ex Parte Boyd

417 So. 2d 577 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Jul 23, 1982

State v. Jones, 252 Ala. 479 , 41 So.2d 280 (1949). … Id. at 247 , 251 So.2d at 209 (citing Harris v. Harris, 211 Ala. 144 , 99 So. 913 (1924)).

Ex Parte Greater Mobile-Wash. County Mental

940 So. 2d 990 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Mar 3, 2006

Creation and Organization of the Board As explained in Williams v. … In Deal v.

State v. Sanders

187 Ala. 79 · Supreme Court of Alabama · May 19, 1914

of Worcester County School Com'rs v. … Kane v. Johnson, 123 Mo. 43 , 27 S.

Ex Parte Tiffin

879 So. 2d 1160 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Oct 3, 2003

Tipler v. Alabama State Bar , 866 So.2d 1126 (Ala. 2003); Alabama Dep't of Transp. v. Price , 854 So.2d 59 (Ala. 2003); Thompson Tractor Co. v. … Chrispens v.

McClure & Co. v. Cox, Brainard & Co.

32 Ala. 617 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Jun 15, 1858

Law Rep.) 704 ; Humfrey v. Dale, in the court of Queen’s Bench, January, 1857, reported in July No. 1857, of the American Law Register; Renner v. Bank of Columbia, 9 Wheaton, 581 ; Brown v. Brown, 8 Metc. … It falls far short of proving that these words, in mercantile usage, *625 bad a well-known meaning peculiar to tbe trade. — See Brown v. Byrne, 3 Ell. & Bl. 702.

Mobile School Comm'rs v. Putnam

44 Ala. 506 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Jun 15, 1870

Rep. 1; Purnell v. Daniels, 8 Iredell’s Eq. Rep. 9; Poor v. Carleton, 3 Sumner’s Rep. 70; Maxwell v. Ward, 11 Prince’s Rep. 17. … The State of Indiana, 14 Howard, 276 ; The Regents v. Williams, 9 Gill and Johnson, 397; Sheriff et al. v. Lowndes, 16 Maryland Rep. 276 ; Cleveland v. Stewart, 3 Georgia Rep. 283; The Trustees, &c., v.

Ex Parte Sterilite Corp. of Alabama

837 So. 2d 815 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Jun 7, 2002

Romer v. Board of County Comm'rs of the County of Pueblo , 956 P.2d 566 , 581 (Colo. 1998) (Kourlis, J., dissenting) (emphasis added). See also NAACP v. Town of East Haven , 892 F. Supp. 46 (D.Conn. 1995). … E.g ., Cooks v.

Holyfield v. Moates

565 So. 2d 186 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Jun 15, 1990

See Downtown Nursing Home, Inc. v. Pool , 375 So.2d 465 (Ala. 1979), cert denied, 445 U.S. 930 , 100 S.Ct. 1318 , 63 L.Ed.2d 763 (1980); and Brown v. Mounger , 541 So.2d 463 (Ala. 1989)." … In Downtown Nursing Home, Inc. v. Pool, supra; and Brown v.

Ex Parte Jones

592 So. 2d 210 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Dec 20, 1991

Brown got out of the car and subsequently began fighting with Williams. … Williams v. State , 375 So.2d 1257 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 375 So.2d 1271 (Ala. 1979); Tate v. State , 435 So.2d 190 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983); Smith v. State , 446 So.2d 68 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984).

Bozeman v. Bozeman

82 Ala. 389 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Dec 15, 1886

. — Brown v. Brown, 41 Ala. 215 . 3. There are other assignments of errors in the record, but we need consider only one of these',.which seems likely to prove fatal to the application upon another trial. … Our past decisions fully authorize its application to such a case as this.— Garrett v. Garrett, 69 Ala. 429 ; McArthur v. Carrie, 32 Ala. 75 ; Harrison v. Heflin, 54 Ala. 552 ; Greenlees v.

Simpson v. Van Ryzin

289 Ala. 22 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Aug 10, 1972

Almon v. … Curry v. Woodstock Slag Corp., 242 Ala. 379 , 6 So.2d 479 .” In accord with the above case are Alabama State Milk Control Board v. Graham, 250 Ala. 49, 54 , 33 So.2d 11 (1947) and Foshee v.

Fraternal Order of Police, Strawberry Lodge 40 v. Entrekin

294 Ala. 201 · Supreme Court of Alabama · May 22, 1975

Chicago Mercantile Exchange v. Deaktor, 414 U.S. 113 , 94 S.Ct. 466 , 38 L.Ed.2d 344 ; Ricci v. … Plaintiffs cite us to Calagaz v.

Chazen v. Parton

739 So. 2d 1104 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Jun 25, 1999

Cherry, Bekaert Holland v. Brown, 582 So.2d 502 (Ala. 1991). Therefore, we must apply Tennessee contract law in determining whether the plaintiffs and Chazen agreed to arbitrate disputes among themselves. … J., and Maddox, Cook, See, Lyons, Brown, and Johnstone, JJ., concur. 1 Chazen is a Tennessee resident.

Jackson v. State

136 Ala. 22 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Nov 15, 1902

. — Williams v. State, 130 Ala. 112 ; Gafford v. State, 125 Ala. 8 ; Brown v. State, 109 Ala. 70 . … Under this evidence, the solicitor in his remarks to the jury, and which were objected to by the defendant, did not exceed the bounds of legitimate argu ment. — Lide v. State, 133 Ala. 43 ; Brown v.

Pittsburg & Midway Coal Mining Co. v. Fayette County

963 So. 2d 610 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Feb 23, 2007

According to the Board, “[t]he crux of [the Company’s] claim against the Board is its dissatisfaction with the ... Final Assessment ] issued against it .... … According to the Company, the “Board misconstrues this action as an ...