776 So. 2d 31 - Ex Parte King’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 state decisions

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

1. “"Because an order setting aside a default judgment is interlocutory and, therefore, not appealable, the proper remedy to review the trial court's *Page 568 action in entering that order is a petition for a writ of mandamus. Ex parte State ex rel. Atlas Auto Finance Co. , 251 Ala. 665 , 38 So.2d 560 (1948). The standard for issuing a writ of mandamus is well settled: "`Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing that there is: "(1) a clear legal right in the petitioner to the order sought; (2) an imperative duty upon the respondent to perform, accompanied by a refusal to do so; (3) the lack of another adequate remedy; and (4) properly invoked jurisdiction of the court." Ex parte Edgar , 543 So.2d 682 , 684 (Ala. 1989); Ex parte Alfab, Inc. , 586 So.2d 889 , 891 (Ala. 1991).'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ward v. Johnathan Motors, LLC (In re Ward) · Ex Parte Bolen

2. “"Appellate review in a piecemeal fashion is not favored, and trial courts should certify a judgment as final, pursuant to Rule 54(b), only in a case where the failure to do so might have a harsh effect. 10 Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller, & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d § 2659, at 99. Consequently, a party who seeks immediate appellate review of a judgment which does not adjudicate all of the claims and/or all of the parties must make a showing as to why it is necessary that appellate review of that particular judgment be conducted prior to adjudication of the entire case. 10 C. Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d § 2659, at 100. "In addition, the trial court, in its order, should list the factors which it considered in reaching its decision regarding whether to certify the judgment, pursuant to Rule 54(b), in order that the appellate court is better equipped to review the trial court's action. 10 C. Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d § 2659, at 114. "Stated another way, in making the determination as to whether a judgment should be certified under Rule 54(b), the trial court should consider any factor that is relevant to that particular case and should list the factors considered in making its determination. The trial court should consider all factors, in addition to the fact that multiple parties and/or multiple claims were involved, that there has been a final decision as to one of the claims and/or the”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Schneider National Carriers, Inc. v. Tinney

3. “"To support a motion to set aside a default judgment, the defaulting party must produce evidence of a meritorious defense that indicates that the case could be decided differently if tried on the merits and thus justifies reopening the case so that justice can be done. Kirtland . A defaulting party has satisfactorily made a showing of a meritorious defense when allegations in an answer or in a motion and its supporting affidavits, if proven at trial, would constitute a complete defense to the claims against the movant or when sufficient evidence has been adduced either by way of affidavit or by some other means to warrant submission of the case to the jury. Kirtland . The allegations set forth to establish the defense must be more than bare legal conclusions; they must counter the allegations in the complaint with specific legal grounds substantiated by a basis of credible evidence. Kirtland . "In his second motion to set aside the default judgment, Baker alleged as follows: "`The judgment is void on its face in that the Plaintiff's complaint is filed in the name of Sylvia Jones. The note and mortgage in question and sued upon was granted to Friday, Inc., a *Page 278 corporation, [and not] to Plaintiff, Sylvia Jones. Sylvia Jones is not the real party in interest nor is she the correct party and she does not own the note and mortgage.' "Baker's conclusion, if proven at trial, would comprise a complete defense to the action against him; however, he failed to submit any factual”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 828 So. 2d 269 - Phillips v. Randolph