Frazier v. Curry’s Empirical Analysis
2013
Citation profile
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 554 So. 2d 376 - Greene v. Thompson · 623 So. 2d 1082 - Kitchens v. Maye · 924 So. 2d 719 - Favorite Market Store v. Waldrop · 554 So. 2d 381 - Walls v. Bank of Prattville · Chism v. Jefferson County
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'injuriously affect[ ] [the] substantial rights of the parties,'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“" 'Rule 59(g)[, Ala. R. Civ. P.,] provides that posttrial motions "remain pending until ruled upon by the court (subject to the provisions of Rule 59.1 ), but shall not be ruled upon until the parties have had opportunity to be heard thereon." The failure to hold a hearing on a posttrial motion is not always reversible error, however. Our supreme court has stated: " ' " '[I]f a party requests a hearing on its motion [filed pursuant to Rule 59, Ala. R. Civ. P.], the court must grant the request.' Ex parte Evans , 875 So.2d 297 , 299-300 (Ala. 2003) (citing Rule 59(g), Ala. R. Civ. P., and Walls v. Bank of Prattville , 554 So.2d 381 , 382 (Ala. 1989) ). Although it is error for the trial court not to grant such a hearing, this error is not necessarily reversible error. 'This Court has established, however, that the denial of a postjudgment motion without a hearing thereon is harmless error, where (1) there is ... no probable merit in the grounds asserted in the motion, or (2) the appellate court resolves the issues presented therein, as a matter of law, adversely to the movant, by application of the same objective standard of review as that applied in the trial court.' Historic Blakely Auth. v. Williams , 675 So.2d 350 , 352 (Ala. 1995) (citing Greene v. Thompson , 554 So.2d 376 (Ala. 1989) )." " ' Chism v. Jefferson County , 954 So.2d 1058 , 1086 (Ala. 2006).' " Cunningham v. Edwards , 25 So.3d 475 , 477 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009).... The issue then becomes whether such error is re”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.