Ala. Code § 12-21-12

Section 12-21-12’s abolition of the scintilla rule does not apply to actions filed before its 1987 adoption.

Green v. Dixon · filed 1998-06-19

This present action was filed before the Legislature abolished the "scintilla rule" in 1987 by the adoption of § 12-21-12, Ala. Code 1975. Therefore, if they made a prima facie showing that there was no such issue, then the opposing parties (the Greens) would have been required to present at least a scintilla of evidence in their favor creating a genuine issue of material fact.

Section 12-21-12 does not apply to actions pending before June 11, 1987; the scintilla rule applies instead.

Kizziah v. Golden Rule Ins. Co. · filed 1988-11-23

This action was pending prior to June 11, 1987; therefore, Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12, as amended, does not apply and the applicable standard of review is the scintilla rule.

Section 12-21-12 does not displace the scintilla rule for actions filed before its June 11, 1987 effective date.

Blair v. City of Rainbow City · filed 1989-03-10

Since this action was filed prior to June 11, 1987, the effective date of Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12, the "scintilla rule" is the standard for determining the propriety of the trial court's entry of summary judgment.

Section 12-21-12 does not displace the scintilla rule in actions filed before its June 11, 1987 effective date.

Williams v. Hurst · filed 1989-03-10

Because the complaint in this case was filed prior to June 11, 1987, the effective date of Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12, the rule for determining whether summary judgment was appropriate is the “scintilla” rule.

Section 12-21-12 does not apply to suits filed before its June 11, 1987, effective date; the scintilla rule applies to those suits.

King v. National Foundation Life Ins. Co. · filed 1989-03-31

Because this suit was filed prior to June 11, 1987, the effective date of Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12, the "scintilla rule" applies to the trial judge's ruling on National's summary judgment motion.

Section 12-21-12’s substantial evidence test took effect June 11, 1987; an action filed before that date remains governed by the scintilla rule.

Malone v. Beggerly · filed 1989-05-05

This case was filed August 2, 1984, and is, thus, governed by the "scintilla rule” rather than the "substantial evidence" test, which became effective June 11, 1987. See § 12-21-12, Ala. Code 1975.

Section 12-21-12 does not displace the scintilla rule for suits filed before June 11, 1987.

Morris v. Birmingham Southern Railroad · filed 1989-05-26

They filed their suit prior to June 11, 1987; therefore, the “scintilla rule” applies. Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12. Under that rule, if a scintilla of evidence exists to support the position of the party against whom a motion for summary judgment is made, summary judgment must be denied.

Section 12-21-12 does not apply to actions pending before June 11, 1987; those actions remain subject to the scintilla rule.

Barnes v. BIRMINGHAM INTERN. RACEWAY · filed 1989-06-16

This action was pending prior to June 11, 1987; therefore, Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12, as amended, does not apply and the applicable standard of review is the scintilla rule.

Section 12-21-12 does not apply to actions filed before its June 11, 1987 effective date; the scintilla rule governs summary judgment in those actions.

Kline v. Resort Inv. Corp. · filed 1989-06-16

Because this action was filed prior to June 11, 1987, the effective date of Ala. Code 1975, § 12-21-12, the "scintilla rule" is the standard for determining the propriety of the summary judgment.

Section 12-21-12 does not govern actions filed before its June 11, 1987 effective date; the scintilla rule applies to those actions.

Hollis v. Brock · filed 1989-06-23

Because this action was filed pri- or to June 11, 1987, the effective date of Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12, the scintilla rule governs our review of the summary judgment.

Section 12-21-12 replaced the scintilla rule with the substantial evidence rule but did not apply to actions filed before its effective date.

Miller v. Degussa Corp. · filed 1989-07-28

This action was filed before the effective date of Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12, which substituted the substantial evidence rule for the scintilla rule.

Section 12-21-12 leaves the scintilla rule applicable to actions commenced before June 11, 1987.

Chandler v. Hospital Authority of City of Huntsville · filed 1989-08-25

This action was commenced prior to June 11, 1987, and therefore is governed by the "scintilla rule."

Section 12-21-12 does not apply to actions filed before its June 11, 1987 effective date; the scintilla rule governs those actions.

Dairyland Ins. Co. v. General Motors Corp. · filed 1989-08-25

Because this action was filed prior to June 11, 1987, the effective date of Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12, the "scintilla rule" applies to our review of the trial court's judgment.

Section 12-21-12 does not apply to actions filed before its June 11, 1987 effective date; the scintilla rule governs those actions.

Rutley v. Country Skillet Poultry Co. · filed 1989-08-25

Because this action was filed prior to June 11, 1987, the effective date of Ala. Code 1975, § 12-21-12, the "scintilla rule" governs this Court's review of the summary judgment.

Section 12-21-12 leaves cases filed before June 11, 1987, governed by the scintilla rule.

D & R Coal Co. v. McPherson Oil Co. · filed 1989-09-08

Because this case was filed prior to June 11, 1987, it is governed by the scintilla rule.

Section 12-21-12 leaves the scintilla-of-evidence standard in place for cases filed before June 11, 1987.

Colonial Bank v. Ridley & Schweigert · filed 1989-09-22

This case was filed prior to June 11, 1987; therefore, applying the Credit Alliance standard, we must determine if there was a scintilla of evidence tending to show that Ridley and Jamison owed a duty to Colonial with respect to the accuracy of the financial statements, the breach of which could result in liability for negligence or wantonness. Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12 replaced the scintilla rule with the substantial evidence rule effective June 11, 1987; the scintilla rule governs suits filed before that date.

McElrath v. Alabama Power Co. · filed 1989-09-29

Because this lawsuit was filed prior to June 11, 1987, the effective date of Ala. Code 1975, § 12-21-12, which replaced the “scintilla rule” with the “substantial evidence rule,” our review of this summary judgment is governed by the “scintilla rule.”

Section 12-21-12 does not displace the scintilla rule for actions commenced before June 11, 1987.

Bogue v. R & M GROCERY · filed 1989-11-09

This action was commenced before June 11, 1987; therefore, the applicable standard of review is the "scintilla rule." See § 12-21-12, Ala.Code 1975.

Section 12-21-12 does not displace the scintilla rule for actions filed before June 11, 1987.

Daniel v. Alabama Power Co. · filed 1989-12-22

Because Daniel filed his complaint before June 11, 1987, APCo's burden of proof on its motion for summary judgment is measured by the "scintilla rule," which requires a trial judge to deny a motion for summary judgment if there is a scintilla of evidence supporting the nonmovant's position. See Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12 leaves actions filed before its effective date subject to the scintilla rule.

Gunnels v. Glenn Machine Works, Inc. · filed 1989-05-19

This action was instituted on May 1, 1987, and therefore is governed by the “scintilla rule.”

Section 12-21-12 does not apply to actions pending on June 11, 1987; the scintilla rule applies to those actions.

KNOWLES BY AND THROUGH HARRISON v. Poppell · filed 1989-05-26

Because this action was pending on June 11, 1987, Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12, does not apply, and the "scintilla rule" is applicable.

Section 12-21-12 leaves the scintilla rule in place for cases pending before June 11, 1987.

Harding v. Bethesda R. Cancer T. Center · filed 1989-09-01

This case was pending prior to June 11, 1987; therefore, the applicable standard of review is the "scintilla rule."

Section 12-21-12 does not displace the scintilla rule in cases pending on June 11, 1987.

Grimes v. Liberty Nat. Life Ins. Co. · filed 1989-09-15

The "scintilla rule" applies in this case because it was pending on June 11, 1987. See Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12 does not apply to suits pending on June 11, 1987; the scintilla rule governs those suits.

Partridge v. Miller · filed 1989-11-09

This suit was pending on June 11, 1987; therefore, Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12, does not apply, and the applicable standard of review is the "scintilla rule."

Section 12-21-12, as amended, does not apply to actions pending on June 11, 1987; the scintilla rule governs those actions.

Cox v. Western Supermarkets, Inc. · filed 1989-11-17

This action was pending on June 11, 1987; therefore, Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12, as amended, does not apply and the applicable standard is the "scintilla rule."

Section 12-21-12’s substantial evidence rule does not apply to actions pending on June 11, 1987; the scintilla of evidence rule applies instead.

Alabama Power Co. v. Foster · filed 1989-12-29

Before examining the record, we note that this action was pending on June 11, 1987; therefore, the “substantial evidence” rule, Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12, does not apply, and the applicable standard of review is the “scintilla of evidence” rule, which has been explained as follows: “A motion for directed verdict or JNOY is tested against the scintilla rule, which requires that a question go to the jury ‘if the evidence or any reasonable inference arising therefrom, furnishes a mere gleam, glimmer, spark, the least particle, the smallest trace, or a scintilla in support of the theory of the complaint.’ Alabama Power Co. v. Taylor, 293 Ala. 484, 306 So.2d 236 (1975).

Section 12-21-12 does not apply to an action pending on June 11, 1987, so the scintilla rule governs.

Liberty Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Sherrill · filed 1989-07-28

Because this action was pending on June 11, 1987, Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12, does not apply and the "scintilla rule" is applicable.

Section 12-21-12 leaves actions filed before June 11, 1987, subject to the scintilla evidence rule.

McGee v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. · filed 1989-12-01

McGee’s complaint was filed before June 11, 1987, and was therefore tried under the scintilla evidence rule. See Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12’s substantial evidence rule does not apply to cases filed before its implementation; the scintilla rule governs whether their claims go to a jury.

Clark v. Jackson · filed 1989-08-25

This case was filed prior to the implementation of the “substantial evidence rule.” Thus, the “scintilla rule” controls the question of whether the issues should have been submitted to a jury. See § 12-21-12, Ala.Code 1975.

Section 12-21-12’s substantial evidence standard does not apply to complaints filed before June 11, 1987; the scintilla rule applies instead.

Terry v. Life Ins. Co. of Georgia · filed 1989-09-22

Because the complaint in this case was filed before June 11, 1987, the scintilla rule, rather than the "substantial evidence" standard, applies. Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12’s substantial evidence test does not apply to cases filed before June 11, 1987; the scintilla rule applies instead.

Carroll v. Deaton, Inc. · filed 1989-12-15

Because this case was filed before June 11, 1987, the "scintilla rule," rather than the "substantial evidence test," applies. See Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12 does not displace the scintilla rule in cases filed before June 11, 1987.

Charter Hosp. of Mobile v. Weinberg · filed 1990-01-12

This case was filed prior to June 11, 1987; therefore, the applicable standard of review is the "scintilla rule." See Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12 does not replace the scintilla rule in cases filed before June 11, 1987.

Hilley v. Allstate Ins. Co. · filed 1990-02-16

This case was filed prior to June 11, 1987; therefore, the applicable standard of review is the "scintilla rule." See Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12, and Rule 56(c), A.R. Civ.P.

Section 12-21-12 does not apply to actions filed before its June 11, 1987 effective date; the scintilla rule governs those actions.

Harris v. FOOD EQUIPMENT SPECIALIST · filed 1990-03-09

Because this action was filed prior to June 11, 1987, the effective date of Ala. Code 1975, § 12-21-12, the "scintilla rule" governs this Court's review of the summary judgment.

Section 12-21-12 does not displace the scintilla of evidence rule for cases filed before June 11, 1987.

Walker v. Howell · filed 1990-03-23

Because this case was filed before June 11, 1987, the "scintilla of evidence” rule is applicable, and the applicable standard of review is the common law "negligence” rule.

Section 12-21-12 does not apply to suits filed before its effective date; the scintilla rule governs those suits.

Phillips v. J.H. Transport, Inc. · filed 1990-04-20

This case is governed by the "scintilla rule" because the suit was filed prior to the effective date of Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12’s substantial evidence rule took effect on June 11, 1987; a case filed on or before that date remains subject to the scintilla of evidence standard on summary judgment.

Guinn v. American Integrity Ins. Co. · filed 1990-09-07

If a case was filed on or before June 11, 1987, the effective date of the "substantial evidence rule" and our review reveals the existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of each of the elements of the plaintiff's claim, the summary judgment must be reversed. Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12; Folmar v. Montgomery Fair Co., 293 Ala. 686, 309 So.2d 818 (1975).

Section 12-21-12 does not apply to complaints filed before June 11, 1987; those complaints are reviewed under the scintilla rule.

Tittle v. Alabama Power Co. · filed 1990-09-07

Tittle's complaint was filed before June 11, 1987, and is therefore reviewed under the "scintilla rule." Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12 (Supp. 1988).

Section 12-21-12 leaves actions pending on June 11, 1987, subject to the scintilla of evidence rule.

Pinson v. Alabama Power Co. · filed 1990-01-26

Because this action was pending on June 11, 1987, the judgment must be reviewed in light of the "scintilla of evidence" rule. Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12 leaves the scintilla rule applicable to actions filed before the substantial evidence rule took effect.

King v. Breen · filed 1990-03-09

Because this action was filed on June 9, 1987, the "scintilla rule" applies (see Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12), and, thus, the summary judgment would have been proper only if there was not a scintilla of evidence to support the plaintiffs' allegations.

Section 12-21-12’s abolition of the scintilla evidence rule does not apply to actions commenced before the abolition.

GREEN TREE ACCEPTANCE v. Standridge · filed 1990-03-30

This action was commenced on May 5, 1987, prior to the abolition of the "scintilla" evidence rule. Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12 (Supp.1988).

Section 12-21-12 does not displace the scintilla-of-evidence rule for an action pending on June 11, 1987.

Salter v. Alfa Ins. Co., Inc. · filed 1990-04-12

This action was pending on June 11, 1987; therefore, the applicable standard of review is the "scintilla of evidence rule." Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12 leaves the scintilla rule applicable to actions pending on June 11, 1987.

Williams v. Price · filed 1990-04-20

The present action was pending on June 11, 1987; therefore, the applicable standard of review is the "scintilla rule." Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12 leaves actions pending on June 11, 1987, subject to the scintilla of evidence rule.

Public Relations Counsel, Inc. v. City of Mobile · filed 1990-04-27

Actions that were pending on June 11, 1987, are tried under the "scintilla of evidence" rule. Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12 does not displace the scintilla of evidence rule for an action pending on June 11, 1987.

DuPont v. Yellow Cab Co. of Birmingham · filed 1990-06-22

Because this action was pending on June 11, 1987, the applicable standard of review is the "scintilla of evidence" rule. Ala. Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12 does not displace the scintilla rule for an action pending on June 11, 1987.

Sea Calm Shipping Co., S.A. v. Cooks · filed 1990-06-29

This action was pending on June 11, 1987, and therefore is subject to review under the "scintilla rule." Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12 does not displace the scintilla rule in lawsuits pending on June 11, 1987.

Sakas v. Capital Concepts Corp. · filed 1990-06-29

Because this lawsuit was pending on June 11, 1987, the "scintilla rule” applies. See Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12 does not replace the scintilla rule for actions pending on June 11, 1987.

Alabama Power Co. v. Williams · filed 1990-08-31

Williams's action was pending on June 11, 1987; therefore, the standard applicable to this case is the "scintilla rule." Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12’s substantial evidence rule does not apply to an action filed on June 8, 1987; the scintilla rule governs instead.

Southern Life and Health Ins. Co. v. Turner · filed 1990-09-21

Turner's complaint was filed on June 8, 1987, and was therefore subject to the "scintilla rule." Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12 (Supp.1989).

An action filed in 1985 is governed by the scintilla rule rather than Section 12-21-12’s substantial evidence standard.

Hawkins v. Miller · filed 1990-09-21

The Hawkinses filed their action on May 7, 1985; therefore, the applicable standard ...for judging the sufficiency of evidence is the “scintilla rule.” Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12 requires substantial evidence in actions commenced after June 11, 1987; earlier actions remain subject to the scintilla rule.

Humphrey's Auto Sales & Wrecker, Inc. v. Duncan Muffler Co. · filed 1990-05-02

Initially, we note that the scintilla rule is applicable here because this action was commenced prior to the enactment of § 12-21-12, Ala. Code 1975 (1986 Repl.Vol.), which requires proof by substantial evidence in all actions commenced after June 11, 1987.

Section 12-21-12’s substantial evidence standard does not apply to cases filed before June 11, 1987; the scintilla rule governs those cases.

Bates v. Meyer · filed 1990-05-25

This case was filed prior to June 11, 1987; therefore, the "scintilla rule" is the applicable standard in this case. See Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12’s substantial evidence rule does not apply to actions filed before June 11, 1987; the scintilla rule applies instead.

Haapanen v. Mid-South Insurance Company · filed 1990-05-25

Because this action was filed prior to June 11, 1987, the "scintilla rule" and not the "substantial evidence rule” is the applicable standard.

Section 12-21-12’s substantial-evidence standard does not apply when the original filing date calls for the scintilla standard.

French v. GTE Communication Systems Corp. · filed 1990-07-11

If the moving party makes a prima facie showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists, then the burden shifts to the non-moving party to show substantial evidence or, in this case due to the date of the original filing, a scintilla of evidence in support of his position. Bass v. South-Trust Bank of Baldwin County, 538 So.2d 794 (Ala.1989). See Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12’s abolition of the scintilla evidence rule does not apply to a case filed before the rule changed.

Harris v. Theriault · filed 1990-03-02

This case was filed on April 6, 1987, before the scintilla evidence rule was abolished. See Ala. Code 1975, § 12-21-12. Accordingly, if there is a scintilla of evidence that negligence or wanton, willful, and malicious conduct on the part of Dr. Theriault probably caused Mr. Harris’s death, then a jury question was presented and summary judgment was improper.

Section 12-21-12 does not replace the scintilla rule in lawsuits filed before June 11, 1987.

Sasser v. Connery · filed 1990-04-06

Because this lawsuit was filed prior to June 11, 1987, the "scintilla rule" applies to this case. See Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12 leaves the scintilla of evidence rule applicable to lawsuits pending on June 11, 1987.

Alfa Mut. Ins. Co. v. Northington · filed 1990-03-16

This lawsuit was pending on June 11, 1987; therefore, the "scintilla of evidence rule" is applicable. Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12 does not apply to cases pending on June 11, 1987; the scintilla rule governs those cases.

McMillian v. Wallis · filed 1990-06-15

This case was pending on June 11, 1987; therefore, the applicable standard of review is the "scintilla rule." See, Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12 does not displace the scintilla evidence rule for an action filed on March 28, 1985.

Caudle v. Patridge · filed 1990-07-27

[1] Because the complaint was filed on March 28, 1985, this case is governed by the "scintilla evidence rule." See Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12 leaves the scintilla rule applicable to claims pending on July 11, 1987.

Dixon v. Southtrust Bank of Dothan, N.A. · filed 1990-09-21

Because Dixon's claims were pending on July 11, 1987, the applicable standard of review is the "scintilla rule." Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12 does not replace the scintilla rule for actions commenced before June 11, 1987.

Oliver v. State Farm General Insurance Co. · filed 1990-12-07

The action in the instant case was commenced before June 11, 1987; therefore, the applicable standard of proof is the "scintilla rule.” Ala. Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12 leaves the scintilla of evidence rule applicable to cases pending on June 11, 1987.

Smith v. Fruehauf Corp. · filed 1991-04-05

This case was pending on June 11, 1987; accordingly, the "scintilla of evidence rule" applies to the ruling on the motion for summary judgment. See Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12's substantial evidence rule does not apply to suits filed before June 11, 1987; the scintilla of evidence rule applies instead.

Keith v. Witt Auto Sales, Inc. · filed 1991-04-19

This suit was filed before June 11, 1987; therefore, the "scintilla of evidence" rule is applicable. Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12 does not replace the scintilla evidence rule for cases pending on June 11, 1987.

Hight v. Byars · filed 1990-09-28

Because this complaint was pending on June 11, 1987, this appeal is governed by the "scintilla evidence rule." Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12 does not replace the scintilla-of-evidence rule for an action pending on June 11, 1987.

Bird v. Auto Owners Ins. Co. · filed 1990-10-19

The action against Auto Owners was pending on June 11, 1987; therefore, the standard of review applicable to its judgment is the "scintilla of evidence" rule. Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12 does not replace the scintilla of evidence rule for an action pending on June 11, 1987.

Liao v. Harry's Bar · filed 1990-12-28

Because this action was pending on June 11, 1987, the applicable standard of review is the "scintilla of evidence" rule. Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12's substantial evidence rule does not apply to an action pending on June 11, 1987; the scintilla rule applies instead.

Harris v. M & S TOYOTA, INC. · filed 1991-01-11

We note that this action was pending on June 11, 1987; therefore, the "substantial evidence" rule, Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12, does not apply, and the applicable standard of review is the "scintilla of evidence" rule, which was explained in Hammond v. City of Gadsden, 493 So.2d 1374, 1376 (Ala. 1986), as follows: ... Because of the application of the "scintilla rule," our duty is to determine whether the Harrises produced a scintilla of evidence at trial on each of the elements of their fraud claim so as to warrant jury consideration.

Section 12-21-12 leaves the scintilla rule applicable to cases pending on June 11, 1987.

Dickinson v. Echols · filed 1991-04-19

Because this case was pending on June 11, 1987, the "scintilla rule" of evidence is applicable. See Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12 leaves actions commenced on April 7, 1987, subject to the scintilla-of-evidence standard.

Sheehan v. Bowden · filed 1990-11-30

This action was commenced on April 7, 1987; therefore, the applicable standard of review is the "scintilla of evidence" rule. Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12 leaves actions commenced before June 11, 1987, subject to the scintilla rule on summary judgment.

Osmer v. Belshe Industries, Inc. · filed 1991-05-03

The action in the instant case was commenced before June 11, 1987; therefore, the applicable standard of proof is the "scintilla rule." Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12. The summary judgment motion must be denied if there is a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff's claims.

Section 12-21-12 does not apply to actions pending on June 11, 1987; those actions remain governed by the scintilla rule.

Johnson v. Life Ins. Co. of Alabama · filed 1991-04-11

Because this action was pending on June 11, 1987, it is governed by the "scintilla rule." See Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12 does not displace the scintilla evidence rule in actions pending on June 11, 1987.

Bonner v. Electric Power Bd. · filed 1991-06-07

These consolidated actions were pending on June 11, 1987, and thus the scintilla evidence rule applies. § 12-21-12, Ala. Code 1975; Kizziah v. Golden Rule Insurance Co., 536 So.2d 943 (Ala.1988).

Section 12-21-12 does not displace the scintilla evidence rule for an action filed on July 15, 1986.

Rogers v. Nall · filed 1991-06-14

Oscar Holland Rogers III filed his action on July 15, 1986, and, thus, it is governed by the scintilla evidence rule. See, Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12 leaves the scintilla rule applicable to civil actions pending on June 11, 1987.

Smith v. Medical Center East · filed 1991-08-16(e)

Calvin Smith's action, alleging the wrongful death of his son Scott, was pending in the Jefferson Circuit Court on June 11, 1987; therefore, the "scintilla rule" of evidence applies. See Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12’s abolition of the scintilla evidence rule did not apply to a case filed before the rule was abolished.

Oates v. Chris Meyers Pontiac-GMC, Inc. · filed 1991-06-28

This case was filed on October 28, 1986, before the scintilla evidence rule was abolished. See Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12. Once the moving party has made a prima facie showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that he is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to overcome that showing by presenting at least a scintilla of evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact.

Section 12-21-12 does not displace the scintilla-of-evidence rule for complaints filed before June 11, 1987.

Phillips v. Alamed Co., Inc. · filed 1991-07-19

Because Phillips's complaint was filed before June 11, 1987, it was governed by the "scintilla of evidence" rule. Ala. Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12 leaves the scintilla rule applicable to cases pending on June 11, 1987.

POWER EQUIPMENT v. First Alabama Bank · filed 1991-08-09

Furthermore, because this case was pending on June 11, 1987, see § 12-21-12, Ala.Code 1975, the "scintilla rule" applies, requiring that summary judgment not be granted if there exists a scintilla of evidence to support the position of the nonmovant.

Section 12-21-12’s substantial evidence rule does not apply to cases pending on June 11, 1987; those cases remain subject to the scintilla rule.

Thomas v. Pepper Southern Const., Inc. · filed 1991-08-09

We note that because this case was pending on June 11, 1987, the "scintilla rule," and not the "substantial evidence rule," is the standard by which the propriety of the summary judgment in this case will be judged. See Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12 leaves the scintilla of evidence rule applicable to cases pending on June 11, 1987.

Aetna Life & Cas. v. ATLANTIC & GULF · filed 1991-09-06

Because this case was pending on June 11, 1987, the applicable standard of review is the "scintilla of evidence" rule. Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12 does not displace the scintilla rule for lawsuits pending on June 11, 1987.

Pruitt v. Zeiger · filed 1991-11-15

Because this lawsuit was pending on June 11, 1987, the "scintilla rule" applies to our review of this case. See Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12 does not replace the scintilla-of-evidence standard in cases pending on June 11, 1987.

Gordon v. Mobile Greyhound Park · filed 1991-12-20

Because this case was pending on June 11, 1987, the applicable standard of review is the "scintilla of evidence" rule. Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12 does not displace the scintilla evidence rule in actions pending on June 11, 1987.

Otis Elevator of Gadsden, Inc. v. Scott · filed 1991-08-23

This action was pending on June 11, 1987; therefore, the applicable standard of review is the "scintilla evidence rule." See Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12; Grider v. Grider, 555 So.2d 104 (Ala.1989).

Section 12-21-12’s substantial evidence rule does not apply to actions pending on June 11, 1987; those actions remain subject to the scintilla of evidence rule.

Maharry v. City of Gadsden · filed 1991-09-06

Because this action was pending on June 11, 1987, the "scintilla of evidence" rule applies. Ala. Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12 leaves the scintilla rule applicable to lawsuits pending on June 11, 1987.

Cribbs v. Shotts · filed 1992-05-08

Because this lawsuit was pending on June 11, 1987, the "scintilla rule" applies to our review of this case. See Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Subsection (e) preserves the scintilla evidence rule for cases pending on June 11, 1987.

Ricwil, Inc. v. S.L. Pappas and Co., Inc. · filed 1992-05-29(e)

Because this case was pending on June 11, 1987, the applicable sufficiency standard is the "scintilla evidence rule." See, § 12-21-12(e), Ala.Code 1975; and Melton v. Perry County Bd. of Educ., 562 So.2d 1341 (Ala.Civ. App.1990).

Section 12-21-12's substantial evidence rule does not apply to actions filed before its enactment; the scintilla rule governs those actions.

Bishop v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co. · filed 1992-06-26

This action was filed prior to the enactment of the "substantial evidence rule" and, therefore, the applicable standard is the "scintilla rule." Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12 does not displace the scintilla rule for actions filed before June 11, 1987.

Levesque v. Regional Medical Center Bd. · filed 1993-01-15

Because this action was filed before June 11, 1987, the "scintilla rule" applies.

Section 12-21-12's substantial evidence standard does not apply to actions commenced before June 11, 1987; the scintilla rule applies to those actions.

Triple J Cattle, Inc. v. Chambers · filed 1993-04-16

This action was commenced before June 11, 1987; therefore, the applicable standard of proof is the "scintilla rule." Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12. The motion for directed verdict was to be denied if there was a scintilla of evidence in support of Herring and Triple J's claims.

Section 12-21-12 applies the substantial evidence rule to cases filed after June 11, 1987.

Wayne J. Griffin Elec. v. Dunn Const. · filed 1993-04-30

This case was filed after June 11, 1987; therefore, the applicable standard of review is the "substantial evidence" rule.

Section 12-21-12 does not apply to a post-judgment garnishment proceeding when the original complaint was filed before June 11, 1987; the scintilla rule applies.

Rice v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. · filed 1993-11-12

Therefore, the scintilla rule applies, because the complaint in the original action was filed before June 11, 1987. See § 12-21-12, Ala.Code 1975.

Section 12-21-12’s substantial evidence rule does not apply to actions filed before June 11, 1987; the scintilla rule applies instead.

Haapanen v. Bogle · filed 1994-03-04

Because this action was filed before June 11, 1987, we must apply the scintilla rule in reviewing these summary judgments. Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12's substantial evidence rule applies to cases that were not pending on June 11, 1987.

Townsend v. General Motors Corp. · filed 1994-05-06

Because this case was not pending on June 11, 1987, we must apply the "substantial evidence" rule. Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12’s substantial evidence rule applies to a case that was not pending on June 11, 1987.

Sgb Const. Services v. Ray Sumlin Const. · filed 1994-05-06

Because this case was not pending on June 11, 1987, we must apply the "substantial evidence" rule. Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

The substantial evidence rule applies to cases that were not pending on June 11, 1987.

Mitchell v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. · filed 1994-05-27

Because this case was not pending on June 11, 1987, the “substantial evidence” rule is applicable. Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12's substantial evidence rule does not apply to suits filed before June 11, 1987.

At & T INF. SYS., INC. v. Cobb Pontiac-Cadillac, Inc. · filed 1989-08-11

Suit was filed prior to June 11, 1987, therefore the substantial evidence rule does not apply. Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12’s substantial evidence rule does not apply to cases pending before the legislature adopted it.

Byrd v. Martin · filed 1989-07-21

The standard of review applicable to this directed verdict is the scintilla rule. ... This case was pending before the legislature adopted the “substantial evidence rule.” See § 12-21-12, Ala. Code 1975.

Section 12-21-12 does not govern summary judgment in a civil action that was pending on June 11, 1987.

Wright v. Schwerman Trucking Co. · filed 1989-12-06

The requirements for summary judgment in this case are to be found in Rule 56, Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, rather than § 12-21-12, Ala.Code 1975, because this civil action was pending on June 11, 1987.

Section 12-21-12 applies the substantial evidence rule to actions commenced after June 11, 1987.

Whitlow v. Bruno's Inc. · filed 1990-07-13

The action in the present case was commenced after June 11, 1987; therefore, the applicable standard of review is the "substantial evidence rule." Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12 (Supp.1988).

Section 12-21-12 applies the substantial evidence rule to actions that were not pending on June 11, 1987.

Raymond v. Amason · filed 1990-07-13

Because this action was not pending on June 11, 1987, the applicable standard of review is the "substantial evidence rule." Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12 does not apply to an action pending on June 11, 1987, including a later amended claim that relates back to the original complaint.

Fahey v. CATV SUBSCRIBER SERVICES · filed 1990-06-22

We hold that the "scintilla rule" applies. Section 12-21-12 is clear in its language, "This section shall not apply to any civil action pending in the courts of this state on June 11, 1987." (Emphasis added.) The Faheys' action was pending on June 11, 1987, and any amendment asserting a claim that arose out of the occurrence set forth in the original complaint relates back to the date of the filing of the original complaint.

The substantial evidence rule applies to a suit filed on September 8, 1988.

Brooks v. City of Dothan Police Dept. · filed 1990-01-26

This suit was filed on September 8, 1988; therefore, the "substantial evidence rule" applies. See Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12’s substantial evidence standard applies to cases filed after June 11, 1987.

MILTON CONST. CO. v. State Highway Dept. · filed 1990-09-14

This case was filed after June 11, 1987; therefore, the applicable standard of review is the "substantial evidence" rule.

Section 12-21-12 applies the substantial evidence rule to actions commenced after June 11, 1987.

King v. Winn-Dixie of Montgomery, Inc. · filed 1990-03-23

The action in the present case was commenced after June 11, 1987; therefore, the applicable standard of review is the "substantial evidence rule." Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12's substantial evidence rule applies to cases filed after June 11, 1987.

Watts v. TI, INC. · filed 1990-03-23

This case was filed after June 11, 1987. The "substantial evidence rule," therefore, applies. See Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12 applies the substantial evidence rule when reviewing summary judgment in lawsuits filed after June 11, 1987.

GREEN BY AND THROUGH GREEN v. Bester · filed 1990-09-14

Because this lawsuit was filed after June 11, 1987, the "substantial evidence rule" is the applicable standard for testing the correctness of the trial court's ruling on the summary judgment motion. See Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12 (Cum.Supp.1989).

Section 12-21-12’s substantial evidence rule applies to cases filed after June 11, 1987.

Boykin v. Magnolia Bay, Inc. · filed 1990-09-21

This case was filed after June 11, 1987; therefore, the applicable standard of review is the "substantial evidence" rule. See Ala. Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

The substantial evidence rule applies to summary judgment review in actions commenced after June 11, 1987.

Smith v. Sherman Smith Trucking Co. · filed 1990-09-21

This action was commenced after ... June 11, 1987; therefore, the applicable standard of review is the “substantial evidence rule.” Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12's substantial evidence rule applies when the complaint was filed after June 11, 1987.

Howard v. Bruno's, Inc. · filed 1990-06-08

The "substantial evidence rule" applies to this case, as the complaint was filed after June 11, 1987. See § 12-21-12, Ala.Code 1975.

Section 12-21-12's substantial evidence rule applies to lawsuits filed after June 11, 1987.

Bell v. Colony Apartments Co., Ltd. · filed 1990-09-21

Because this lawsuit was filed after June 11, 1987, the "substantial evidence rule" applies. See Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12 (1989 Supp.).

The substantial evidence rule applies to lawsuits filed after July 11, 1987.

Roberts v. Public Cemetery of Cullman · filed 1990-09-28

Because this lawsuit was filed after July 11, 1987, the "substantial evidence rule" applies. Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

The substantial evidence rule applies to an action that was not pending on June 11, 1987.

Wakefield v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. · filed 1990-11-30

Because this action was not pending on June 11, 1987, the applicable standard of review is the "substantial evidence" rule.

Section 12-21-12's substantial evidence rule applies to actions that were not pending on June 11, 1987.

Lee v. Ledsinger · filed 1991-03-15

Because this action was not pending on June 11, 1987, the applicable standard of review is the "substantial evidence" rule. Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12’s substantial evidence rule applies to summary judgment rulings in cases that were not pending on June 11, 1987.

Pearson v. Delchamps, Inc. · filed 1991-05-03

The present case was not pending on June 11, 1987; accordingly the "substantial evidence rule" applies to the ruling on the motion for summary judgment. See Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12 applies the substantial evidence standard to actions that were not pending on June 11, 1987.

Century 21 Academy Realty, Inc. v. Breland · filed 1990-11-16

Because this action was not pending on June 11, 1987, the applicable standard of review is the "substantial evidence" rule. Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12 applies the substantial evidence rule to an action that was not pending on June 11, 1987.

East v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. · filed 1991-03-15

Because the action in the present case was not pending on June 11, 1987, the applicable standard of review is the "substantial evidence rule." Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12's substantial evidence rule applies to an action that was not pending on June 11, 1987.

Fincher v. Robinson Bros. Lincoln-Mercury · filed 1991-05-17

Because this action was not pending on June 11, 1987, the applicable standard of review is the "substantial evidence" rule. Ala. Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12’s substantial evidence rule applies to actions that were not pending on June 11, 1987.

Jordan v. General Motors Corp. · filed 1991-05-31

Because this action was not pending on June 11, 1987, the applicable standard of review is the "substantial evidence" rule. Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12. ... Because Jordan presented no evidence other than evidence that she received injuries as a result of an automobile accident while wearing a GM seat belt, we hold that she did not present substantial evidence to support a claim under the AEMLD.

Section 12-21-12 applies the substantial evidence rule to actions that were not pending on June 11, 1987.

Badie v. First Capital Mortg. Corp. · filed 1991-02-08

Because this action was not pending on June 11, 1987, the applicable standard of review is the "substantial evidence" rule. Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

The substantial-evidence rule applies to cases that were not pending on June 11, 1987.

LEIGHTON AVE. OFFICE PLAZA v. Campbell · filed 1991-06-14

Because this case was not pending on June 11, 1987, the applicable standard of review is the "substantial evidence" rule. Ala. Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12's substantial evidence rule applies to complaints filed after June 11, 1987.

Hollis v. Tomlinson · filed 1991-08-02

[1] The complaint in this case was filed after June 11, 1987; thus, the "substantial evidence rule" applies. See Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12's substantial evidence rule applies to an action that was not pending on June 11, 1987.

McDonald v. U.S. Die Casting and Dev. · filed 1991-08-02

Because this action was not pending on June 11, 1987, the applicable standard of review is the "substantial evidence" rule. Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12 applies the substantial evidence rule to actions that were not pending on June 11, 1987.

Moore v. Reeves · filed 1991-08-16

Because this action was not pending on June 11, 1987, the applicable standard of review is the "substantial evidence" rule. Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12 requires the substantial evidence rule in actions commenced after June 11, 1987.

Gardner v. Key · filed 1991-12-06

Because this action was commenced after June 11, 1987, the "substantial evidence rule" must be applied. See Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

The substantial evidence rule applies to cases filed after June 11, 1987.

Hanson v. New Technology, Inc. · filed 1992-02-07

This case was filed after June 11, 1987; therefore, the applicable standard of review is the "substantial evidence" rule. Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

The substantial evidence rule applies to cases that were not pending on June 11, 1987.

Mixon v. Houston County · filed 1992-02-14

Because this case was not pending on June 11, 1987, the applicable standard of review is the "substantial evidence" rule. Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12 applies the substantial evidence rule to actions that were not pending on June 11, 1987.

Brown v. Economy Baler Co. · filed 1992-03-20

Because this action was not pending on June 11, 1987, the applicable standard of review is the "substantial evidence rule." Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12 supplies the substantial evidence standard of review for an action filed in June 1990.

Abney v. Baptist Medical Centers · filed 1992-04-03

The present action was filed in June 1990; therefore, the applicable standard of review is the "substantial evidence rule." See § 12-21-12, Ala.Code 1975.

Section 12-21-12 makes the substantial evidence rule applicable to actions filed after June 11, 1987.

Millender v. Southern Rock, Inc. · filed 1992-05-08

The present action was filed after June 11, 1987; therefore, the applicable standard of review is the “substantial evidence rule.” See § 12-21-12, Ala.Code 1975.

Section 12-21-12’s substantial evidence rule applies to a case that was not pending on June 11, 1987.

Cannon v. Jefferson County Committee for Economic Opportunity, Inc. · filed 1992-05-22

Because this case was not pending on June 11, 1987, the applicable standard of review is the “substantial evidence rule.” Ala. Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12's substantial evidence rule applies to cases filed after June 11, 1987.

Speer v. Pin Palace Bowling Alley · filed 1992-05-29

This case was filed after June 11, 1987; therefore, the "substantial evidence rule" is applicable. Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12's substantial evidence rule applies to cases filed after June 11, 1987.

Campisi v. Scoles Cadillac, Inc. · filed 1992-11-25

[1] This case was filed after June 11, 1987; therefore, the applicable standard of review is the "substantial evidence rule." See Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12; West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870 (Ala. 1989).

Section 12-21-12 applies the substantial evidence standard to cases that were not pending on June 11, 1987.

Kidd v. Kilpatrick Chevrolet, Inc. · filed 1993-01-22

Because this case was not pending on June 11, 1987, the applicable standard of review is the "substantial evidence" rule. Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12 applies the substantial evidence rule to cases that were not pending on June 11, 1987.

Hoover v. Tuttle · filed 1992-11-25(e)

Because this case was not pending on June 11, 1987, the applicable standard of review is the "substantial evidence" rule. Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12 leaves the scintilla evidence standard in place for actions commenced before June 11, 1987.

Drill Parts and Service Co. v. Joy Mfg. · filed 1993-01-08(e)

Because the plaintiffs commenced this action before June 11, 1987, the applicable standard for testing a summary judgment motion is the "scintilla rule." Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12’s substantial evidence rule applies to cases that were not pending on June 11, 1987.

Stroud v. John M. Cockerham & Associates, Inc. · filed 1993-05-07

Because this case was not pending on June 11, 1987, the applicable standard of review is the “substantial evidence” rule. Ala. Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12’s substantial evidence rule applies to cases that were not pending on June 11, 1987.

Broadus v. Essex Ins. Co. · filed 1993-05-14

Because this case was not pending on June 11, 1987, the applicable standard of review is the "substantial evidence" rule. See Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12 applies the substantial evidence standard to cases that were not pending on June 11, 1987.

Long v. Jefferson County · filed 1993-07-30

Because this case was not pending on June 11, 1987, the applicable standard of review is the "substantial evidence" rule. Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12 applies the substantial evidence rule to compensatory damages claims that were not pending on June 11, 1987.

Grimes v. Stewart · filed 1993-09-03

Because Stewart's claim was not pending on June 11, 1987, the applicable standard for reviewing his compensatory damages claim is the "substantial evidence" rule. See Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12, and West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870 (Ala.1989).

Section 12-21-12's substantial evidence rule governs review of summary judgments in actions filed after June 11, 1987.

Fleming Farms v. Dixie Ag Supply, Inc. · filed 1994-01-07

The actions were filed after June 11, 1987; therefore, the applicable standard of review of these summary judgments is the "substantial evidence" rule. See Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12, and West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870 (Ala. 1989).

Under § 12-21-12, an affidavit stating specific facts about a disputed signature can constitute substantial evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact.

Adams v. Tractor & Equipment Co. · filed 2015-05-01

Although Adams’s first affidavit was not detailed, it contained a recitation of specific facts— that he had reviewed the guaranty provision at issue and that he did not sign the guaranty provision — that constituted substantial evidence demonstrating a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether a guaranty binding Adams existed.

Section 12-21-12 requires substantial evidence to defeat a directed verdict: evidence from which fair-minded people could reasonably infer the fact at issue.

Ashcraft v. Mobile Infirmary Medical Center · filed 1990-08-31

This Court, construing § 12-21-12, has stated that substantial evidence is “evidence of such weight and quality that fair-minded persons in the exercise of impartial judgment can reasonably infer the existence of the fact sought to be proved.” ... This testimony created a triable issue of fact sufficient to defeat the Infirmary’s motion for directed verdict.

Subsection (d) treats evidence as substantial when its weight and quality allow fair-minded persons exercising impartial judgment to reasonably infer the fact at issue.

Nelson v. Buckley · filed 1990-09-07(d)

Instead, this opinion only recognizes that Nelson presented "evidence of such weight and quality that fair-minded persons in the exercise of impartial judgment can reasonably infer the existence of the facts [Nelson] sought to [prove]." Thomas v. Principal Financial Group, 566 So.2d 735, 738 (Ala.1990); West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala.1989); Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12(d).

Section 12-21-12(d) defines substantial evidence as evidence from which reasonable and fair-minded people could reach different conclusions about a fact.

Standard Furniture Mfg. Co. v. Reed · filed 1990-09-28(d)

The standard of review for testing the sufficiency of the evidence when the sufficiency is challenged by either a motion for directed verdict or a motion for JNOV is the "substantial evidence rule" set out at Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12(d): "Substantial evidence shall mean evidence of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair-minded persons in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions as to the existence of the fact sought to be proven."

Section 12-21-12 applies the substantial evidence standard to cases filed after June 11, 1987; substantial evidence permits a fair-minded person to reasonably infer the fact at issue.

Hicks v. Globe Life and Acc. Ins. Co. · filed 1991-05-31

This case was filed subsequent to June 11, 1987; therefore, the applicable standard of review is the "substantial evidence rule." "Substantial evidence" has been defined as "evidence of such weight and quality that fair-minded persons in the exercise of impartial judgment can reasonably infer the existence of the fact sought to be proved."

Section 12-21-12 applies the substantial-evidence standard to cases that were not pending on June 11, 1987.

Point Properties, Inc. v. Anderson · filed 1991-06-14

Because this case was not pending on June 11, 1987, the applicable standard of review is the "substantial evidence" rule. Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12 applies the substantial evidence rule to an action that was not pending on June 11, 1987.

Chilton v. City of Huntsville · filed 1991-06-21

Because this action was not pending on June 11, 1987, the applicable standard of review is the "substantial evidence" rule. Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12 requires a party opposing summary judgment to provide substantial evidence once the moving party makes a prima facie showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists.

Lightfoot v. McDonald · filed 1991-08-02

Once the moving party has made a prima facie showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists, then the burden shifts to the nonmovant to provide "substantial evidence" in support of his position. Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12; Rule 56, A.R.Civ.P.; Hanners v. Balfour Guthrie, Inc., 564 So.2d 412 (Ala.1990); Bass v. SouthTrust Bank of Baldwin County, 538 So.2d 794 (Ala.1989).

Section 12-21-12 requires plaintiffs in cases not pending on June 11, 1987, to prove their claims by substantial evidence.

Terry v. Phillips 66 Co., Inc. · filed 1991-11-01

Because this case was not pending on June 11, 1987, Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12, the plaintiffs must prove their case by "substantial evidence," which this Court has defined as "evidence of such weight and quality that fair-minded persons in the exercise of impartial judgment can reasonably infer the existence of the fact sought to be proved." West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala.1989).

Section 12-21-12 requires a summary judgment nonmovant in an action not pending on June 11, 1987, to meet the burden with substantial evidence.

McCullough v. McAnalley · filed 1991-11-15

Because this action was not pending on June 11, 1987, Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12, mandates that the nonmovant meet his burden by "substantial evidence."

Section 12-21-12 supplies the substantial evidence standard for reviewing a summary judgment in an action filed in January 1990.

Davis v. Gobble-Fite Lumber Co., Inc. · filed 1991-11-22

The present action was filed in January 1990; therefore, the applicable standard of review is the “substantial evidence” rule. See § 12-21-12, Ala.Code 1975.