Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 564 So. 2d 440 - Allen v. Hooks

564 So. 2d 440 - Allen v. Hooks’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
October 1990
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 55 Ala. App. 103 - Standard Oil Company v. State · 423 So. 2d 231 - Payne v. Department of Industrial Relations · Crawley v. Carter · 409 So. 2d 447 - Taylor v. Department of Indus. Relations · 468 So. 2d 177 - Dir., Dept. of Ind. Rel. v. Winston Co. Com'n

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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Our interpretation of § 25-4-95 as a whole convinces us that the director must be served within 10 days. Service on the director triggers his obligation to file the record of the unemployment compensation proceedings with the court, without which the case cannot proceed. Further, the circuit court is required to give these cases priority over others before the court. Failure to apply the 10-day time limit to service on the director would negate the clear intent of the legislature to allow unemployment compensation claimants the fastest possible access to judicial review. The director must have notice of the appeal before the process can even begin. We are mindful that the unemployment compensation statutes are to be construed liberally in favor of claimants, Polk v. State of Alabama Department of Industrial Relations, 413 So.2d 1164 (Ala.Civ.App.1982); however, we feel that the best interests of claimants and DIR will be served by timely filing as well as timely service of notice on the director. We also feel that the statute lends itself to no other reasonable interpretation. The statute is poorly served and an otherwise orderly procedure is frustrated if a ease is delayed some two months, as it was here, or two years, as it was in Doty , because DIR was not notified of the pendency of the appeal.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““[N]otice of appeal must be filed within ten days after the Board of Appeals’ decision becomes final. The section [25— 4-95] further requires that a copy of the notice shall be served upon the director ... by registered or certified mail within the same ten-day period-””
    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.