Ala. Code § 12-21-12

Section 12-21-12 requires a nonmovant to produce substantial evidence of a genuine issue of material fact after the movant makes a prima facie showing for summary judgment.

Eli Global, LLC, and Greg Lindberg v. Ronald Cieutat Todd Vereen Deborah Simison, personal representative of the Estate · filed 2023-12-01

Once the movant makes a prima facie showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact, the burden then shifts to the nonmovant to produce 'substantial evidence' as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. Bass v. SouthTrust Bank of Baldwin County, 538 So. 2d 794, 797-98 (Ala. 1989); Ala. Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12 requires a nonmovant opposing summary judgment to present substantial evidence of a genuine issue of material fact.

Russell A. Collins and Stacey D. Collins v. West Alabama Bank & Trust · filed 2025-09-12

Once the movant makes a prima facie showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact, the burden then shifts to the nonmovant to produce 'substantial evidence' as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. Bass v. SouthTrust Bank of Baldwin County, 538 So. 2d 794, 797-98 (Ala. 1989); Ala. Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12 requires a party opposing summary judgment to show by substantial evidence that a genuine issue of material fact exists once the moving party makes a prima facie showing.

Currie v. Currie · filed 1990-09-14

Once a party moving for summary judgment presents a prima facie case showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to prove by substantial evidence the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. See Rule 56; Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

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

Cobb v. SOUTHEAST TOYOTA DISTRIBUTORS · filed 1990-09-28

This case was filed after June 11, 1987; accordingly, the "substantial evidence rule" applies to the ruling on Southeast Toyota's motion for summary judgment. See Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12. Once a movant makes a prima facie showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact, the nonmovant must show that there is "substantial evidence" in support of his position in order to withstand a motion for summary judgment.

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

RNH, INC. v. Beatty · filed 1990-10-26

On motion for summary judgment, when the movant makes a prima facie showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists, as in the present case, the burden then shifts to the non-movant to show "substantial evidence" in support of his position.

Section 12-21-12 requires substantial evidence to rebut a prima facie showing on summary judgment and warrant submitting a claim to the jury.

Van Ryswyk v. Berwick Bay Oil Co., Inc. · filed 1990-10-26

Van Ryswyk failed to offer substantial evidence to rebut that showing and to warrant the submission of his claims to the jury. See § 12-21-12, Ala.Code 1975.

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.

Friddle v. Raymond · filed 1991-01-11

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

Once a summary judgment movant makes a prima facie showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists, the nonmovant must provide substantial evidence supporting its position.

McDuffie v. BRINKLEY, FORD, CHESTNUT AND ALDRIDGE · filed 1991-02-15

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

Once a party moving for summary judgment makes a prima facie showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists, the nonmoving party must provide substantial evidence in support of its position.

Brooks v. City of Birmingham · filed 1991-05-17

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).

Once a summary judgment movant makes a prima facie showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists, § 12-21-12 requires the nonmovant to provide substantial evidence supporting its position.

Curtis v. Bill Byrd Automotive, Inc. · filed 1991-05-27

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

Once the moving party makes a prima facie showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists, the nonmovant must provide substantial evidence in support of its position.

Green v. County Commission ex rel. Fields · filed 1991-06-14

Once the moving party has made a prima facie showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to provide “substantial evidence” in support of his position.

Section 12-21-12 requires a party opposing summary judgment to present substantial evidence after the movant makes a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment.

Poole v. HENDERSON, BLACK AND GREENE · filed 1991-06-28

This case was filed after June 11, 1987; accordingly, the "substantial evidence rule" applies to the ruling on the motion for summary judgment. Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12. Once a movant makes 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 nonmovant must present substantial evidence in support of his position in order to defeat the summary judgment motion.

For actions filed after June 11, 1987, § 12-21-12 requires a summary judgment nonmovant to present substantial evidence once the movant makes a prima facie showing.

Olympia Produce v. Associates Fin. Serv. · filed 1991-06-28

Because this action was filed after June 11, 1987, Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12, mandates that, once the movant makes his prima facie showing, the nonmovant meet his burden by "substantial evidence."

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.

Murdoch v. Knollwood Park Hosp. · 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 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.

Blane v. Alabama Commercial College · 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 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.

Brantley v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. · filed 1991-08-09

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 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.

Cannon v. State Farm · filed 1991-08-30

Once the moving party has made a prima facie showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists, 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 a party opposing summary judgment to rebut a prima facie showing with substantial evidence of a genuine issue of material fact.

Hirsch v. Alabama State Docks Department · filed 1991-11-15

In order to rebut a prima facie showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact, the nonmovant must show the existence of a genuine issue of material fact by “substantial evidence,” Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12, which 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.” West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala.1989).

Section 12-21-12 requires a party opposing summary judgment to offer substantial evidence of a genuine issue of material fact after the moving party makes a prima facie showing.

Ex Parte Hirsch · filed 1991-11-15

In order to rebut a prima facie showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact, the nonmovant must show the existence of a genuine issue of material fact by "substantial evidence," Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12, which 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." West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala.1989).

Once a summary-judgment movant makes a prima facie showing, § 12-21-12 requires the nonmovant to rebut it with substantial evidence.

Fuqua v. INGERSOLL-RAND CO., INC. · filed 1991-12-20

If this showing is made, the burden then shifts to the nonmovant to rebut the movant's prima facie showing by "substantial evidence." Ala. Code 1975, § 12-21-12. ... As to the issue of what company manufactured the chain hoist used by Fuqua, there was ample evidence submitted in opposition to the summary judgment motion that, when viewed in a light most favorable to the nonmovant, could lead a fair-minded person to conclude that Ingersoll-Rand manufactured the chain hoist.

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

Thompson v. Eichold · filed 1992-01-24

On a motion for summary judgment, once the movant makes a prima facie showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists, as in the present case, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to present “substantial evidence” (see Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12) in support of his position.

In cases commenced after July 11, 1987, a plaintiff opposing summary judgment must present substantial evidence to overcome the defendant's prima facie showing.

Gossett v. Twin County Cable TV, Inc. · filed 1992-02-14

In cases commenced after July 11, 1987, as was this case, in order to survive a defendant's motion for summary judgment, a plaintiff must overcome the defendant's prima facie showing by the plaintiff's own showing of "substantial evidence." Ala. Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12 requires a party opposing summary judgment to present substantial evidence of a genuine factual dispute once the moving party makes a prima facie showing.

Mobil Oil Corp. v. Schlumberger · filed 1992-03-27

Once the moving party has made a prima facie showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact, the nonmoving party must rebut that prima facie showing by presenting "substantial evidence" in support of the nonmovant's position, thereby showing the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. "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." West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala.1989), Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

After a moving party makes a prima facie showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists, the nonmoving party must present substantial evidence creating one.

Campbell v. Valley Garden Apartments · filed 1992-06-12

Once the moving party has made a prima facie showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact, the nonmoving party must rebut that showing by presenting substantial evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact.

Section 12-21-12 requires substantial evidence to rebut a prima facie showing on summary judgment.

Jefferies v. Bush · filed 1992-08-07

The present action was filed in June 1988; therefore, the applicable standard of review is the "substantial evidence rule." See § 12-21-12, Ala.Code 1975. ... Our review of the record reveals that the Bushes made a prima facie showing that the alleged trespass was not attended by words or acts of insult or contumely, and Mrs. Jefferies failed to rebut that showing by presenting substantial evidence that the trespass was attended with words or acts of insult or contumely.

Section 12-21-12 requires a party opposing summary judgment to present substantial evidence of a genuine factual dispute once the moving party makes a prima facie showing.

Brown v. Continental Casualty Insurance Co. · filed 1992-08-21

Once the moving party has made a prima facie showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact, the non-moving party must rebut that showing by presenting substantial evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact.

Section 12-21-12 requires a party opposing summary judgment in a case commenced after June 11, 1987, to present substantial evidence of a genuine issue of material fact once the movant makes a prima facie showing.

Burks v. Pickwick Hotel · filed 1992-10-30

In cases commenced after June 11, 1987, as this one was, the nonmovant, in order to rebut such a prima facie showing, must show the existence of a genuine issue of material fact by "substantial evidence." See Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12 requires a party opposing summary judgment to present substantial evidence of a genuine issue of material fact once the movant makes a prima facie showing.

Reeves Cedarhurst Development Corporation v. First American Fed. Savings and Loan Association · filed 1992-10-30

When the movant has carried the burden of making a prima facie showing, by admissible evidence, that there is no genuine issue of material fact, the party opposing the summary judgment motion then has the burden of presenting substantial evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact. Bass v. SouthTrust Bank of Baldwin County, 538 So.2d 794, 797-98 (Ala.1989); Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Once a summary judgment movant makes a prima facie showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists, the opposing party must present substantial evidence creating one.

Reeves Cedarhurst Dev. v. FIRST AMFED · filed 1992-10-30

When the movant has carried the burden of making a prima facie showing, by admissible evidence, that there is no genuine issue of material fact, the party opposing the summary judgment motion has the burden of presenting substantial evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact. Bass v. SouthTrust Bank of Baldwin County, 538 So.2d 794, 797-98 (Ala.1989); Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Once a summary judgment movant makes a prima facie showing with admissible evidence, the opposing party must present substantial evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact.

Wright v. Bailey · filed 1992-11-25

When the movant has carried the burden of making a prima facie showing, by admissible evidence, that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law, the party opposing the summary judgment has the burden of presenting substantial evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact. Bass v. SouthTrust Bank of Baldwin County, 538 So.2d 794, 797-98 (Ala.1989); Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

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

Birmingham News v. CHAMBLEE AND HARRIS · filed 1993-01-08(a)

At this point, the non-moving party must present "substantial evidence" to defeat the movant's motion. Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12(a) (1992 Cum. Supp.).

For actions not pending on June 11, 1987, the nonmovant must offer substantial evidence to overcome a prima facie showing for summary judgment.

Dothard v. Dept. of Human Resources · filed 1993-01-29

For actions not pending on June 11, 1987, the nonmovant must offer "substantial evidence" to overcome the prima facie showing. See Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12 requires a party opposing summary judgment to present substantial evidence of a material factual dispute once the movant makes a prima facie showing.

Ryan v. First Alabama Bank · filed 1993-02-19

If the movant makes such a showing, then the burden shifts to the nonmovant to demonstrate, by "substantial evidence," the existence of an issue of material fact. Id.; § 12-21-12, Ala.Code 1975.

Section 12-21-12 requires the nonmoving party in an action filed after June 11, 1987, to present substantial evidence to withstand a directed verdict or JNOV motion.

Stoner v. Anderson · filed 1997-07-18

For actions filed after June 11, 1987, the nonmovant must present substantial evidence in order to withstand a motion for a directed verdict or a motion for a JNOV. See § 12-21-12, Ala.Code 1975; West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala.1989).

Section 12-21-12(a) requires a nonmovant to present substantial evidence supporting each element of a claim or defense to withstand a directed verdict or JNOV motion.

Cherokee Elec. Co-Op. v. Cochran · filed 1997-12-12(a)

For actions filed after June 11, 1987, the standard of review applicable to both motions is the "substantial evidence rule." See, § 12-21-12(a), Ala.Code 1975; Koch v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 565 So.2d 226, 228 (Ala.1990). Thus a nonmovant must present "substantial evidence" [4] supporting each element of his cause of action or defense to withstand a motion for directed verdict or JNOV.

Section 12-21-12(a) requires substantial evidence to create a jury question and withstand a motion for judgment as a matter of law.

Grand Manor, Inc. v. Dykes · filed 1998-08-28(a)

In ruling on a motion for a JNOV, the trial court is called upon to determine whether the evidence was sufficient to submit a question of fact to the jury; for the court to determine that it was, there must have been `substantial evidence' before the jury to create a question of fact. See, § 12-21-12(a), Ala.Code 1975. ... Based on a careful review of the record in a light most favorable to the Dykeses, we conclude that the Dykeses presented substantial evidence (1) that Grand Manor owed them a duty to manufacture their mobile home with reasonable care, (2) that Grand Manor breached that duty, and (3) that the Dykeses suffered damage as a proximate cause of that breach.

Section 12-21-12 requires substantial evidence to submit a factual issue to the jury.

Daniels v. East Alabama Paving, Inc. · filed 1999-06-04

Regarding questions of fact, the ultimate question is whether the nonmovant has presented substantial evidence to allow the factual issue to be submitted to the jury for resolution. Carter v. Henderson, 598 So.2d 1350 (Ala.1992). See, also, § 12-21-12, Ala.Code 1975, and West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala.1989). ... This conflict in the evidence created a jury question, which was resolved in favor of the Danielses. Accordingly, the trial court properly denied EAPI's motion for a JML on the negligence count.

Section 12-21-12(a) requires substantial evidence supporting each element of a claim or defense to withstand a directed verdict or JNOV in actions filed after June 11, 1987.

Liberty Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Allen · filed 1997-03-07(a)

For actions filed after June 11, 1987, the standard of review applicable to a motion for a directed verdict or for a JNOV is the "substantial evidence rule." See, § 12-21-12(a), Ala.Code 1975; Koch v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 565 So.2d 226, 228 (Ala. 1990). Thus, in an action filed after June 11, 1987, a party presenting a claim or a defense must present "substantial evidence" [2] supporting each element of the claim or defense in order to withstand a motion for a directed verdict or for a JNOV.

Section 12-21-12 requires substantial evidence to withstand a motion for a directed verdict or JNOV.

Liberty Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Caddell · filed 1997-06-06

A motion for a directed verdict or a JNOV is due to be granted when the nonmoving party has failed to present substantial evidence to support his or her position. ... Based upon the conflicting evidence, we conclude that the trial court properly submitted the conversion claim to the jury.

Section 12-21-12 requires substantial evidence supporting each element of a claim or defense to withstand a motion for directed verdict or JNOV.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Tuck · filed 1995-05-26

The applicable standard of review in considering a trial court's denial of both a motion for directed verdict and a motion for JNOV is the "substantial evidence" rule, § 12-21-12, Ala.Code 1975. ... The ultimate question as to either motion is whether the nonmovant has presented substantial evidence supporting each element of his cause of action or defense in order to withstand a movant's motion for a directed verdict or a JNOV.

Section 12-21-12 requires substantial evidence to withstand a motion for a directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

S & D GRINER, INC. v. Colwell · filed 1995-07-14

A motion for a directed verdict or a JNOV is due to be granted when the nonmoving party has failed to present substantial evidence to support his or her position. Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12; John R. Cowley & Bros., Inc. v. Brown, 569 So.2d 375 (Ala. 1990). ... The worker presented substantial evidence that the company did in fact terminate her because she had filed a claim for workmen's compensation benefits.

Section 12-21-12(a) requires substantial evidence to submit an issue to a jury; without it, a directed verdict is proper.

Smith v. Vice · filed 1994-04-29(a)

The standard of review applicable to a directed verdict motion is whether the nonmoving party has presented substantial evidence in support of his position. If he has not, then a directed verdict is proper. Bailey v. Avera, 560 So.2d 1038, 1039 (Ala.1990); see Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12(a). ... Because Vice did not present substantial evidence of undue influence or of incapacity, the trial court should have directed a verdict for Smith on both issues.

Section 12-21-12 requires the nonmoving party to present substantial evidence to avoid a directed verdict in cases filed after June 11, 1987.

Bailey v. Avera · filed 1990-03-09

This case was filed after June 11, 1987. Accordingly, the "substantial evidence" rule is the standard for review in this Court. See Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12. Therefore, the standard of review applicable to a directed verdict would be whether the nonmoving party had presented substantial evidence in support of his position. If he had not, then a directed verdict would be proper. § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12 requires a plaintiff to present substantial evidence of each element of a cause of action to avoid a directed verdict.

Chamlee v. Johnson-Rast and Hays · filed 1990-07-20

The Chamlees filed their action after June 11, 1987; therefore, the applicable standard of review is the "substantial evidence rule." Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12. Under that standard, a verdict is properly directed for the defendant if the plaintiff has failed to present substantial evidence as to each element of the cause of action.

In actions filed after June 11, 1987, a plaintiff must present substantial evidence of each element of a claim to avoid a directed verdict for the defendant.

South Cent. Bell Telephone Co. v. Branum · filed 1990-09-21

This action was filed after June 11, 1987; therefore, the applicable standard of review is the "substantial evidence rule." Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12; Koch v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 565 So.2d 226 (Ala.1990); Robichaux v. AFBIC Development Co., 551 So.2d 1017 (Ala.1989). In actions filed after June 11, 1987, a directed verdict for the defendant is proper when the plaintiff has failed to present "substantial evidence" as to each element of her cause of action.

Section 12-21-12 requires a party opposing a directed verdict to present substantial evidence supporting its claim.

Youngblood v. Thornton · filed 1991-03-01

As to the Youngbloods’ contention regarding the directed verdict, we note that our review is governed by the familiar standard found in the “substantial evidence” rule. See Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12. Thus, the standard of review applicable to the directed verdict in favor of Thornton and Color-Mart on the issue of wantonness is whether the nonmoving parties, the Youngbloods, presented substantial evidence in support of their position. If the Youngbloods failed to provide such evidence, then the directed verdict was proper.

Section 12-21-12 requires substantial evidence of each essential element of a claim to avoid a directed verdict in an action filed after June 11, 1987.

Danford v. Arnold · filed 1991-05-31

Because this action was filed after June 11, 1987, the applicable standard of review is the "substantial evidence rule." Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12; Watters v. Lawrence County, 551 So.2d 1011 (Ala. 1989). Thus, a directed verdict is proper when the claimant has failed to present substantial evidence as to one or more elements of his cause of action.

Section 12-21-12 bars a directed verdict when the nonmoving party produces substantial evidence supporting a claim or defense.

Conner v. Magic City Trucking Service, Inc. · filed 1992-01-24

On the other hand, if the nonmoving party has produced substantial evidence in support of his or her claim or defense, then the moving party is not entitled to a directed verdict. Ala. Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12(a) requires a party opposing a directed verdict to present substantial evidence supporting each element of the claim or defense.

Springer v. Jefferson County · filed 1992-02-28(a)

For actions filed after June 11, 1987, the standard of review applicable to a motion for directed verdict is the "substantial evidence rule." See, § 12-21-12(a), Ala.Code 1975; Koch v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 565 So.2d 226, 228 (Ala.1990). Thus, in an action filed after June 11, 1987, a nonmovant must present "substantial evidence" supporting each element of his cause of action or defense to withstand a movant's motion for a directed verdict.

Section 12-21-12(a) requires a nonmovant in an action filed after June 11, 1987, to present substantial evidence supporting each element of a claim or defense to withstand a directed verdict or JNOV.

Carter v. Henderson · filed 1992-05-01(a)

For actions filed after June 11, 1987, the standard of review applicable to motions for directed verdict and JNOV is the "substantial evidence rule." See, § 12-21-12(a), Ala.Code 1975; Koch v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 565 So.2d 226, 228 (Ala.1990). Thus, in an action filed after June 11, 1987, a nonmovant must present "substantial evidence" [1] supporting each element of his cause of action or defense to withstand a movant's motion for a directed verdict or JNOV.

Section 12-21-12 uses the substantial evidence standard to assess whether evidence is sufficient to withstand a directed verdict.

Strahsburg v. Winn-Dixie Montgomery, Inc. · filed 1992-06-26

The applicable standard of review is the "substantial evidence" rule, § 12-21-12, Ala.Code 1975. "[S]ubstantial 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." West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala.1989).

Section 12-21-12 requires a wantonness claim supported by substantial evidence to be submitted to the jury.

Henderson v. City of Mobile · filed 1992-08-07

There was evidence that Porter acted in disregard of the possibility that he could cause injury, and that evidence, being "substantial” (see Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12), was sufficient to present a fact question for the jury on the issue of wantonness.

Section 12-21-12(a) makes the substantial evidence rule the standard for reviewing a directed verdict in actions filed after June 11, 1987.

Renfro v. Georgia Power Co. · filed 1992-09-04(a)

For actions filed after June 11, 1987, the standard of review applicable to a motion for directed verdict is the "substantial evidence rule." See, § 12-21-12(a), Ala.Code 1975; Koch v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 565 So.2d 226, 228 (Ala.1990). ... We conclude, as did the trial court, that the plaintiffs presented no substantial evidence that the defendants breached any duty owed them.

Section 12-21-12 permits a directed verdict when the plaintiff fails to present substantial evidence on one or more elements of the claim.

Bell v. Sugarwood Homes, Inc. · filed 1993-02-05

Under the "substantial evidence rule" (§ 12-21-12, Ala.Code 1975) a directed verdict is proper when the plaintiff has failed to present substantial evidence as to one or more of the elements of the plaintiff's cause of action.

For actions filed after June 11, 1987, Section 12-21-12(a) applies the substantial evidence standard to motions for directed verdict and JNOV.

Dial v. Dial · filed 1992-08-28(a)

For actions filed after June 11, 1987, the standard of review applicable to motions for directed verdict and JNOV is the "substantial evidence rule." See § 12-21-12(a), Ala.Code 1975; Koch v. State Farm Fire & Casualty. Co., 565 So.2d 226, 228 (Ala.1990).

Section 12-21-12 requires substantial evidence to support a claim when a court considers a directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

Bolan v. Bolan · filed 1993-01-08

In assessing whether the trial court should have granted a directed verdict or a j.n.o.v. on the grounds that the evidence was legally insufficient, this Court must determine whether the nonmoving parties—the contestants—presented substantial evidence to support their claims. Ala. Code 1975, § 12-21-12; Bailey v. Avera, 560 So.2d 1038 (Ala.1990).

Section 12-21-12 requires substantial evidence of wantonness to withstand a directed verdict on a claim for compensatory damages.

Senn v. Alabama Gas Corp. · filed 1993-03-05

The accident made the basis of this case occurred on November 22, 1989; therefore, the applicable standard for reviewing the directed verdict on Senn's claim for compensatory damages under his wantonness count is the "substantial evidence rule." See Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12. Therefore, the directed verdict on this aspect of Senn's wantonness claim was proper unless there was substantial evidence that Sizemore was operating his truck in a wanton manner at the time of the collision.

For actions filed after June 11, 1987, a nonmovant must present substantial evidence supporting each element of a claim or defense to withstand a directed verdict or JNOV.

First Financial Ins. Co. v. Tillery · filed 1993-06-25(a)

For actions filed after June 11, 1987, the standard of review applicable to motions for directed verdict and JNOV is the "substantial evidence rule." See, § 12-21-12(a), Ala. Code 1975; Koch v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 565 So.2d 226, 228 (Ala.1990). Thus, in an action filed after June 11, 1987, a nonmovant must present "substantial evidence" supporting each element of his cause of action or defense in order to withstand a motion for a directed verdict or JNOV.

Section 12-21-12(a) requires substantial evidence supporting each element of a claim for that claim to survive a directed verdict.

Cato v. Lowder Realty Co. · filed 1993-09-24(a)

The standard of review applicable to a motion for a directed verdict is the "substantial evidence rule." See § 12-21-12(a), Ala.Code 1975; Koch v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 565 So.2d 226, 228 (Ala.1990). That is, the court must determine whether the nonmovants presented "substantial evidence" supporting each element of their cause of action; if not, the motion is to be granted.

Section 12-21-12 requires the nonmoving party to present substantial evidence supporting its position when opposing a directed verdict.

Wofford v. Safeway Ins. Co. of Alabama · filed 1993-09-10

If the moving party has carried this burden, we must then determine whether the nonmoving party has presented substantial evidence in support of its position. If the nonmoving party has failed to present substantial evidence, then a directed verdict is proper. Bailey v. Avera, 560 So.2d 1038 (Ala.1990); Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12. ... Therefore, the rule book does not provide substantial evidence that Safeway exercised such control over Henry as to make him its agent.

A directed verdict or J.N.O.V. is proper when the party with the burden of proof fails to present substantial evidence.

Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Harris · filed 1994-01-07(a), (c)

Like a directed verdict, a J.N.O.V. is proper when the party with the burden of presenting evidence has failed to present "substantial evidence" in support of its position.

Section 12-21-12 requires an appellate court reviewing a directed verdict to determine whether the party bearing the burden of proof produced substantial evidence creating a question for the jury.

Phelps v. Dempsey · filed 1995-02-24

Because the Phelpses' action was filed after June 11, 1987, the "substantial evidence rule" applies. Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12. Under that rule, "[i]n reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion for a directed verdict, the appellate court must determine whether the party having the burden of proof has produced substantial evidence creating a question requiring resolution by the jury." Bell v. Sugarwood Homes, Inc., 619 So.2d 1298, 1300 (Ala.1993).

Section 12-21-12(a) requires substantial evidence supporting each element of a claim or defense to withstand a motion for a directed verdict.

Hosea O. Weaver & Sons, Inc. v. Towner · filed 1995-05-12(a)

The standard of review applicable to a motion for directed verdict is the "substantial evidence rule." See, § 12-21-12(a), Ala.Code 1975; Koch v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 565 So.2d 226, 228 (Ala.1990). To withstand a motion for a directed verdict, a party must have presented "substantial evidence" supporting each element of his cause of action or defense. ... Thus, the trial court correctly denied Hosea Weaver's motion for a directed verdict.

Section 12-21-12(a) requires substantial evidence supporting each element of a claim or defense to withstand a directed verdict.

NATIONAL SEC. FIRE AND CAS. v. Coshatt · filed 1996-08-30(a)

In summary, National Security failed to produce substantial evidence supporting its contention that the Coshatts denied National Security access to the property.

Section 12-21-12(d) governs whether the evidence is sufficient to submit an issue to the jury on a directed verdict motion; conflicting testimony that the jury could resolve precludes a directed verdict.

Brooks v. Winn-Dixie of Montgomery, Inc. · filed 1997-11-14(d)

Further, this court is governed by the "substantial evidence" rule set forth in § 12-21-12(d), Ala.Code 1975. ... In light of the conflicting testimony, the trial court properly denied the Brookses' motion for a directed verdict.

Section 12-21-12 requires a nonmovant in an action filed after June 11, 1987, to present substantial evidence to withstand a motion for judgment as a matter of law.

ASS'N v. Grissett · filed 1998-09-11

For actions filed after June 11, 1987, the nonmovant must present substantial evidence in order to withstand a motion for a JML.

Section 12-21-12 requires a nonmovant in an action filed after June 11, 1987, to present substantial evidence to withstand a motion for judgment as a matter of law.

Delchamps, Inc. v. Bryant · filed 1999-04-23

For actions filed after June 11, 1987, the nonmovant must present "substantial evidence" in order to withstand a motion for a JML. See § 12-21-12, Ala. Code 1975; West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala.1989). A reviewing court must determine whether the party who bears the burden of proof has produced substantial evidence creating a factual dispute requiring resolution by the jury.

Section 12-21-12 requires a nonmovant to present substantial evidence to withstand a motion for judgment as a matter of law.

Alfa Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Payton · filed 1999-04-30

In an action filed after June 11, 1987, the nonmovant must present substantial evidence to withstand a motion for a JML. See § 12-21-12, Ala.Code 1975; West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala.1989).

Section 12-21-12 requires a nonmovant in an action filed after June 11, 1987, to present substantial evidence to withstand a motion for judgment as a matter of law.

Liberty National Life Insurance Co. v. White · filed 1999-06-11

For actions filed after June 11, 1987, the nonmovant must present ‘substantial evidence’ in order to withstand a motion for a JML. ... Based on our review of the evidence, we conclude that the court correctly submitted the fraudulent-suppression claim to the jury. The evidence created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Liberty National had suppressed information regarding the reinstatement of the 1991 life insurance policy as compared to the reissuance of two new policies in 1993.

Section 12-21-12 requires a nonmovant to present substantial evidence to withstand a motion for judgment as a matter of law.

Cooley v. Gulf Bank, Inc. · filed 1999-08-20

For actions filed after June 11, 1987, the nonmovant must present `substantial evidence' in order to withstand a motion for a JML. See § 12-21-12, Ala.Code 1975; West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala.1989). ... Because the Cooleys presented substantial evidence in support of their misrepresentation claim, that claim should have been submitted to the jury.

For actions filed after June 11, 1987, § 12-21-12 requires substantial evidence to withstand a motion for judgment as a matter of law.

Waldrip Wrecker Service, Inc. v. Wallace · filed 1999-12-03

Suffice it to say that, after reviewing the evidence in a light most favorable to Wallace, as we are required to do, we conclude that Wallace presented substantial evidence to allow the case to be submitted to the jury.

Section 12-21-12 requires a nonmovant in an action filed after June 11, 1987, to present substantial evidence to withstand a motion for judgment as a matter of law.

Bell v. T.R. Miller Company, Inc. · filed 2000-02-04

For actions filed after June 11, 1987, the nonmovant must present "substantial evidence" in order to withstand a motion for a judgment as a matter of law. See § 12-21-12, Ala. Code 1975; West v. Founders Life Assur. Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala. 1989). ... Based upon the record, we hold that the plaintiff Bell, who bore the burden of proof, produced substantial evidence creating a factual dispute requiring resolution by the jury.

Section 12-21-12(a) requires substantial evidence creating a question of fact for the jury to withstand a motion for judgment as a matter of law.

Poarch v. Alfa Mutual Insurance Co. · filed 2000-02-04(a)

Our review of the record reveals substantial evidence from which the jury could reasonably infer that Alfa did breach its obligation under the insurance contract with the Poarches to provide replacement-cost coverage with regard to the fire damage to their home. Moreover, the record contains evidence from which the jury could infer that Alfa, with knowledge of its obligation to supply replacement-cost coverage concerning the repair of the damaged walls in the Poarches' home, intentionally refused to provide such coverage. We conclude that the trial court did not err by denying Alfa's motions for a judgment as a matter of law.

Section 12-21-12 requires substantial evidence before a factual issue may be submitted to a jury; on a motion for judgment as a matter of law, reasonable inferences favor the nonmovant.

Hutchins v. DCH Regional Medical Center · filed 2000-02-11

Regarding questions of fact, the ultimate question is whether the nonmovant has presented substantial evidence to allow the factual issue to be submitted to the jury for resolution. Carter v. Henderson, 598 So.2d 1350 (Ala.1992). See, also, § 12-21-12, Ala. Code 1975, and West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala.1989). ... Taking into account the testimony of nurse Baugh and Dr. Kennedy, we conclude that the plaintiff presented substantial evidence from which a reasonable juror could conclude that DCH, through nurse Wilkins, breached the standard of care and that Hutchins's infection and subsequent death were the proximate results of that breach of the standard of care.

Section 12-21-12 requires substantial evidence of a factual dispute to withstand a motion for judgment as a matter of law.

Six v. Sunshine Homes, Inc. · filed 2000-03-24

We conclude that the worker presented substantial evidence creating a genuine issue of fact as to whether the company fired him for filing a workers' compensation claim or fired him for a permissible reason. Therefore, the trial court erred by entering a JML for the company.

Section 12-21-12 requires a nonmovant to present substantial evidence to withstand a motion for judgment as a matter of law.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Irby · filed 2000-06-30

In an action filed after June 11,1987, the nonmovant must present substantial evidence to withstand a motion for a JML. See § 12-21-12, Ala. Code 1975; West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala.1989). ... Because we conclude that Irby presented substantial evidence from which the jury could have concluded that the spill had been present long enough to impute notice to Wal-Mart, it follows that the trial court properly denied Wal-Mart’s motion for a judgment as a matter of law.

Section 12-21-12 requires a nonmovant in an action filed after June 11, 1987, to present substantial evidence to withstand a motion for judgment as a matter of law.

Myrick v. Barron · filed 2001-11-02

For actions filed after June 11, 1987, the nonmovant must present `substantial evidence' in order to withstand a motion for a JML. See § 12-21-12, Ala.Code 1975; West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala. 1989).

In actions filed after June 11, 1987, a nonmovant must present substantial evidence to withstand a motion for judgment as a matter of law.

Hornady Truck Line, Inc. v. Meadows · filed 2002-08-16

For actions filed after June 11, 1987, the nonmovant must present `substantial evidence' in order to withstand a motion for a JML. See § 12-21-12, Ala.Code 1975; West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala.1989).

Section 12-21-12 requires a nonmovant to present substantial evidence to withstand a motion for judgment as a matter of law.

Johnson v. Stewart · filed 2003-02-28

For actions filed after June 11, 1987, the nonmovant must present `substantial evidence' in order to withstand a motion for a JML. See § 12-21-12, Ala.Code 1975; West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala. 1989). ... We must apply these principles in reviewing the trial court's ruling on Dr. Johnson's motion for a JML. ... For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Stewarts did not offer substantial evidence in support of their invasion-of-privacy claims against Dr. Johnson.

Section 12-21-12 requires a nonmovant to present substantial evidence to withstand a motion for judgment as a matter of law in actions filed after June 11, 1987.

ALABAMA GREAT SOUTHERN RR CO. v. Johnson · filed 2003-06-27

For actions filed after June 11, 1987, the nonmovant must present "substantial evidence" in order to withstand a motion for a JML. See § 12-21-12, Ala.Code 1975; West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala.1989).

Section 12-21-12 requires a party opposing judgment as a matter of law to present substantial evidence sufficient to submit a factual issue to the jury.

Peak v. Parks · filed 2003-06-30

Viewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the Peaks, including the evidence discussed above, and entertaining such reasonable inferences as the jury would have been free to draw, we conclude that the Peaks presented substantial evidence that the Parkses were aware that their failure to implement appropriate BMPs during their subdivision excavation activity would likely result in injury.

Section 12-21-12 requires a nonmovant in an action filed after June 11, 1987, to present substantial evidence to withstand a motion for judgment as a matter of law.

Johnson v. Investment Co. of South, L.L.C. · filed 2003-07-11

For actions filed after June 11,1987, the nonmovant must present ‘substantial evidence’ in order to withstand a motion for a judgment as a matter of law. See § 12-21-12, Ala. Code 1975; West v. Founders Life Assur. Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala.1989). ... We must conclude that Johnson failed to present substantial evidence that would withstand the defendants’ motion for a judgment as a matter of law.

Section 12-21-12 requires a nonmovant to present substantial evidence to withstand a motion for judgment as a matter of law.

Waddell & Reed, Inc. v. UNITED INVEST. LIFE INS. CO. · filed 2003-09-05

The nonmovant must have presented substantial evidence in order to withstand a motion for a JML. See § 12-21-12, Ala.Code 1975; West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala.1989).

Section 12-21-12 requires a nonmovant in an action filed after June 11, 1987, to present substantial evidence to withstand a motion for judgment as a matter of law.

Allen v. Stephens · filed 2003-09-26

For actions filed after June 11, 1987, the nonmovant must present ‘substantial evidence’ in order to withstand a motion for a JML. ... No evidence was presented that indicates that the Allens endeavored to conceal the condition of the driveway from Fred at the time of the lease. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court erred in not granting the Allens’ motion for a JML.

Section 12-21-12 requires a nonmovant to present substantial evidence to withstand a motion for judgment as a matter of law.

General Motors Corp. v. Jernigan · filed 2003-12-12

The nonmovant must have presented substantial evidence in order to withstand a motion for a JML. See § 12-21-12 , Ala. Code 1975; West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida , 547 So.2d 870 , 871 (Ala. 1989).

Section 12-21-12 requires a nonmovant in an action filed after June 11, 1987, to present substantial evidence to withstand a motion for judgment as a matter of law.

Callaway v. Whittenton · filed 2003-12-19

For actions filed after June 11, 1987, the nonmovant must present "substantial evidence" in order to withstand a motion for a judgment as a matter of law. See § 12-21-12, Ala.Code 1975; West v. Founders Life Assur. Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala.1989).

Section 12-21-12 requires a nonmovant in an action filed after June 11, 1987, to present substantial evidence to withstand a motion for judgment as a matter of law.

Regions Bank v. Plott · filed 2004-06-25

For actions filed after June 11, 1987, the nonmovant must present "substantial evidence" in order to withstand a motion for a JML. See § 12-21-12, Ala.Code 1975; West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala.1989). ... In short, the Plotts have failed to produce substantial evidence in support of their false-light claim against Regions. The trial court erred, therefore, in refusing to enter a JML in favor of Regions on that claim.

Section 12-21-12 requires the nonmovant in an action filed after June 11, 1987, to present substantial evidence to withstand a motion for judgment as a matter of law.

THOMPSON PROP. v. Birmingham Hide & Tallow · filed 2004-07-09

In an action filed after June 11, 1987, the nonmovant must present substantial evidence to withstand a motion for a JML. See § 12-21-12, Ala.Code 1975; West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala.1989).

Section 12-21-12 requires a nonmovant in an action filed after June 11, 1987, to present substantial evidence to withstand a judgment as a matter of law.

George H. Lanier Memorial Hosp. v. Andrews · filed 2004-11-19

In an action filed after June 11, 1987, the nonmovant must present substantial evidence to withstand a JML. See § 12-21-12, Ala.Code 1975; West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala.1989).

A party opposing judgment as a matter of law must present substantial evidence creating a factual dispute for the jury.

Savelle v. Armstrong · filed 2004-11-19

The nonmovant must have presented substantial evidence in order to withstand a motion for a JML. See § 12-21-12, Ala.Code 1975; West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala.1989). ... Because Savelle produced substantial evidence creating a factual dispute requiring resolution by the jury, the trial court erred in granting a JML in favor of the Armstrongs.

Section 12-21-12 requires the nonmovant to present substantial evidence creating a factual question for the jury to withstand a motion for judgment as a matter of law.

Coleman v. Smith · filed 2004-11-19

A reviewing court must determine whether the party who bears the burden of proof has produced substantial evidence creating a factual dispute requiring resolution by the jury. ... After reviewing the record, we conclude that the evidence of Smith’s rate of speed, when coupled with evidence of the conditions of the road in question, raised a question of fact to be resolved by the jury as to whether Smith’s actions rose to the level of wantonness as defined by our supreme court.

Section 12-21-12 requires substantial evidence to withstand a motion for judgment as a matter of law.

Continental Cas. Co. v. PLANTATION PIPE LINE · filed 2004-11-24

The nonmovant must have presented substantial evidence in order to withstand a motion for a JML. See § 12-21-12, Ala.Code 1975; West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala.1989). ... Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plantation, the nonmovant, we conclude that it has offered substantial evidence supporting its case. The trial court therefore did not err in denying Continental's motion for a judgment as a matter of law.

Section 12-21-12 requires a party opposing judgment as a matter of law to present substantial evidence sufficient to submit a factual dispute to the jury.

Jim Walter Resources, Inc. v. Riles · filed 2004-12-03

For actions filed after June 11, 1987, the nonmovant must present `substantial evidence' in order to withstand a motion for a JML. See § 12-21-12, Ala.Code 1975; West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala.1989). A reviewing court must determine whether the party who bears the burden of proof has produced substantial evidence creating a factual dispute requiring resolution by the jury.

Section 12-21-12 requires the nonmovant in an action filed after June 11, 1987, to present substantial evidence to withstand a motion for judgment as a matter of law.

Tenn Tom Bldg. v. OLEN, NICHOLAS, & COPELAND, PC · filed 2005-02-25

In an action filed after June 11, 1987, the nonmovant must present substantial evidence to withstand a motion for a JML. See § 12-21-12, Ala. Code 1975; West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala.1989). ... While Harmon's testimony established that Tenn Tom was aware of the possibility that a trespasser in the building might start a fire, his testimony was not sufficient to establish that Tenn Tom knew or had reason to know of a probability that a trespasser would intentionally set fire to the building.

Section 12-21-12 requires a nonmovant to present substantial evidence to withstand a motion for judgment as a matter of law.

City of Mobile v. Taylor · filed 2005-06-17

The nonmovant must present "substantial evidence" in order to withstand a motion for a JML. See § 12-21-12, Ala.Code 1975; West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala.1989). ... Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, and considering the reasonable inferences the jury would be free to draw therefrom, we must conclude that there was substantial evidence to justify submitting to the jury the question whether the plaintiffs were placed in a zone of danger.

Section 12-21-12 requires substantial evidence of an essential element to withstand a motion for judgment as a matter of law.

State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Williams · filed 2005-08-19

Accordingly, we conclude that the Williamses failed to present substantial evidence of an essential element of their breach-of-contract claim—damages—and that the trial court erred in denying State Farm's motion for a preverdict JML.

Section 12-21-12 requires a nonmovant to present substantial evidence to withstand a motion for a judgment as a matter of law.

Favorite Market Store v. Waldrop · filed 2005-09-02

The nonmovant must present "substantial evidence" in order to withstand a motion for a JML. See Ala. Code 1975, § 12-21-12; and West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala.1989). ... In this case, Waldrop has not presented substantial evidence indicating that Favorite Market lacked probable cause when it initiated the prior proceeding.

In actions filed after June 11, 1987, § 12-21-12 requires the nonmovant to present substantial evidence to withstand a motion for judgment as a matter of law.

Cochran v. Ward · filed 2006-01-27

In an action filed after June 11, 1987, the nonmovant must present substantial evidence to withstand a motion for a JML. See § 12-21-12, Ala.Code 1975; and West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala.1989). ... Viewing the evidence, as we must, in a light most favorable to the Wards as the nonmovants, Carter, 598 So.2d at 1353, this Court concludes that the Wards produced substantial evidence from which a jury could infer that Todd Johnson was not factory-trained or fully qualified to install the metal roof.

Section 12-21-12 requires a nonmovant to present substantial evidence to withstand a motion for judgment as a matter of law.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Smith · filed 2006-10-27

The nonmov-ant must present ‘substantial evidence’ in order to withstand a motion for a JML. ... Thus, we conclude that Smith did not present substantial evidence of “abnormal bad faith” on the part of State Farm.

Section 12-21-12 requires a nonmovant to present substantial evidence to withstand a motion for judgment as a matter of law.

LORREN v. Agan · filed 2006-12-15

The nonmovant must present "substantial evidence" in order to withstand a motion for a JML. See § 12-21-12, Ala.Code 1975; West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala.1989). ... At the very least, the circumstantial evidence tending to prove that Edward did agree to enter into a marital relationship with Myrtice was sufficient to create a jury question regarding the second essential element of a common-law marriage.

Section 12-21-12 requires substantial evidence to submit a claim to the jury when judgment as a matter of law is sought.

Clark v. Kindley · filed 2007-02-09

We must, therefore, determine whether Clark presented substantial evidence from which a jury could reasonably find that Findley’s conduct amounted to wantonness. ... Therefore, we hold that Clark’s wantonness claim should have been presented to the jury.

Section 12-21-12 requires a nonmovant to present substantial evidence to withstand a motion for judgment as a matter of law.

Leiser v. RAYMOND R. FLETCHER, MD, PC · filed 2007-08-03

The nonmovant must have presented substantial evidence in order to withstand a motion for a [judgment as a matter of law]. See § 12-21-12, Ala. Code 1975; West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala.1989). ... A factual question was therefore presented and that question was properly submitted to the jury. Accordingly, Leiser's motion for a judgment as a matter of law was correctly denied.

Section 12-21-12 requires substantial evidence of a factual dispute for a claim to withstand a motion for judgment as a matter of law and go to the jury.

Rogers & Willard, Inc. v. Harwood · filed 2007-09-14

We hold that R & W presented substantial indicating evidence that it had substantially performed the contract; the issue was, therefore, properly submitted to the jury for its resolution.

Section 12-21-12 requires substantial evidence of a factual dispute for a claim to withstand a motion for judgment as a matter of law.

Walls v. STATE FARM MUT. AUTO. INS. CO. · filed 2007-10-12

Evidence of Breedlove's conversation with the client, prior to the client's writing the letter to Walls terminating his employment, is substantial evidence creating a factual dispute as to whether State Farm and Breedlove intentionally interfered with the relationship between Walls and WC and their client, an issue requiring resolution by the jury.

Section 12-21-12 requires a nonmovant to present substantial evidence to withstand a motion for judgment as a matter of law.

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. ALA. DEPT. OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES · filed 2007-11-01

The nonmovant must have presented substantial evidence in order to withstand a motion for a JML.

Section 12-21-12 requires a nonmovant in an action filed after June 11, 1987, to present substantial evidence to withstand a motion for judgment as a matter of law.

Slack v. Stream · filed 2008-01-18

For actions filed after June 11, 1987, the nonmovant must present "substantial evidence" in order to withstand a motion for a [judgment as a matter of law]. See § 12-21-12, Ala. Code 1975; West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala.1989).

A nonmovant must present substantial evidence to withstand a motion for judgment as a matter of law.

Frederick v. Wallis · filed 2008-08-29

The nonmovant must have presented substantial evidence in order to withstand a motion for a JML.

Section 12-21-12 requires a nonmovant to present substantial evidence to withstand a motion for judgment as a matter of law.

Thompson v. Patton · filed 2008-10-10

The nonmovant must have presented substantial evidence in order to withstand a motion for a [judgment as a matter of law]. See § 12-21-12, Ala. Code 1975; West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala.1989).

Section 12-21-12 requires a nonmovant to present substantial evidence to withstand a motion for judgment as a matter of law.

Stewart v. Bradley · filed 2008-11-14

For actions filed after June 11, 1987, the nonmovant must present “substantial evidence” in order to withstand a. motion for a JML. See § 12-21-12, Ala.Code 1975; ... Using this standard of review, we review the Bradleys’ claims to determine if they were properly submitted to the jury for resolution.

Section 12-21-12 requires a party opposing judgment as a matter of law to present substantial evidence sufficient to submit a factual dispute to the jury.

City of Birmingham v. Major · filed 2008-11-21

The nonmovant must have presented substantial evidence in order to withstand a motion for a JML. See § 12-21-12, Ala.Code 1975; ... Therefore, the City is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law if it can demonstrate that Major failed to produce substantial evidence either that he suffered a constitutional injury or that his injury was caused by police action pursuant to a municipal policy or custom.

Section 12-21-12 requires the nonmovant to present substantial evidence to withstand a motion for a judgment as a matter of law.

Mobile OB-GYN, P.C. v. Baggett · filed 2009-06-12

The nonmovant must have presented substantial evidence in order to withstand a motion for a JML. See § 12-21-12, Ala.Code 1975; West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala.1989). ... We therefore review each of those four counts to determine whether they were supported by substantial evidence at trial.

Section 12-21-12 requires a nonmovant to present substantial evidence to withstand a motion for judgment as a matter of law.

Qore, Inc. v. Bradford Bldg. Co., Inc. · filed 2009-06-12

The nonmovant must have presented substantial evidence in order to withstand a motion for a JML. See § 12-21-12, Ala.Code 1975; West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Fla., 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala.1989).

Section 12-21-12 requires a nonmovant to present substantial evidence to withstand a motion for judgment as a matter of law.

Regions Bank v. Dean · filed 2009-08-21

The nonmovant must have presented substantial evidence in order to withstand a motion for a JML. See § 12-21-12, Ala.Code 1975; West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala.1989). ... The record does not establish that Aubrey or Jerold ever performed any acts constituting physical possession of the property. Neither Jerold nor Aubrey actually possessed the property. Therefore, Jerold could not establish title to the property by virtue of adverse possession by prescription. Accordingly, the trial court erred in submitting to the jury Jerold’s ejectment claim, which was based in part on his claim to own the property through adverse possession by prescription.

Section 12-21-12 requires a nonmovant to present substantial evidence to withstand a motion for judgment as a matter of law in actions filed after June 11, 1987.

CNH AMERICA, LLC v. Roebuck · filed 2009-10-23

In an action filed after June 11, 1987, the nonmovant must present substantial evidence to withstand a [judgment as a matter of law]. See § 12-21-12, Ala.Code 1975; West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala.1989). ... Because Roebuck failed to introduce substantial evidence indicating that CNH proximately caused the accident leading to Chris’s death, CNH is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law on all the tort claims asserted by Roebuck.

Section 12-21-12 requires a party opposing judgment as a matter of law to present substantial evidence sufficient to submit a factual dispute to the jury.

SVERDRUP TECHNOLOGY, INC. v. Robinson · filed 2009-10-23

The nonmovant must have presented substantial evidence in order to withstand a motion for a JML. See § 12-21-12, Ala.Code 1975; West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala.1989).

Section 12-21-12 requires a nonmoving party to present substantial evidence to withstand a motion for judgment as a matter of law.

Blakley v. Johnson · filed 2010-10-29

For actions filed after June 11, 1987, the nonmovant must present “substantial evidence” in order to withstand a motion for a JML. ... Because disputed issues of fact remained as to the Blakleys’ claim of negligence, the trial court properly denied the Blakleys’ motion for a JML and submitted that claim for the jury’s resolution.

Section 12-21-12 requires a nonmovant to present substantial evidence to withstand a motion for judgment as a matter of law.

O'Rear v. B.H. · filed 2011-03-11

The nonmovant must have presented substantial evidence in order to withstand a motion for a [judgment as a matter of law].

A claim must be supported by substantial evidence to withstand a motion for judgment as a matter of law.

Lafarge North America, Inc. v. Nord · filed 2011-09-23

For actions filed after June 11,1987, the nonmovant must present ‘substantial evidence’ in order to withstand a motion for a JML. ... Nord failed to present substantial evidence of wantonness. Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s judgment denying the defendants’ renewed motion for a JML on Nord’s wantonness claim.

Section 12-21-12 requires a nonmovant to present substantial evidence to withstand a motion for judgment as a matter of law.

Tanner v. Ebbole · filed 2011-09-23

The nonmovant must have presented substantial evidence in order to withstand a motion for a JML. ... A good-count/bad-count situation is not presented here because, as discussed below, the evidence in support of each count was sufficient.

Section 12-21-12 requires a nonmovant to present substantial evidence to withstand a motion for judgment as a matter of law.

Heisz v. Galt Industries, Inc. · filed 2012-01-06

The nonmovant must have presented substantial evidence in order to withstand a motion for a [judgment as a matter of law]. See § 12-21-12, Ala. Code 1975; West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala.1989).

Section 12-21-12 requires a party opposing judgment as a matter of law to present substantial evidence sufficient to submit a factual dispute to the jury.

McMahon v. Yamaha Motor Corp. U.S.A. · filed 2012-03-02

The nonmovant must have presented substantial evidence in order to withstand a motion for a [judgment as a matter of law]. See § 12-21-12, Ala. Code 1975; West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala.1989).

Section 12-21-12 requires a nonmovant to present substantial evidence to withstand a motion for a judgment as a matter of law.

Hrynkiw v. Trammell · filed 2012-05-11

The nonmovant must have presented substantial evidence in order to withstand a motion for a [judgment as a matter of law]. See § 12-21-12, Ala. Code 1975; West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala.1989).

Section 12-21-12 requires a nonmovant to present substantial evidence to withstand a motion for judgment as a matter of law.

Beddingfield v. Linam · filed 2013-03-08

The nonmovant must have presented substantial evidence in order to withstand a motion for a JML. ... We conclude that the evidence presented to the jury does not support Trace’s claim of negligent entrustment. Therefore, Larry and Becky were entitled to a JML as to the claim of negligent entrustment.

For actions filed after June 11, 1987, a party opposing a motion for judgment as a matter of law must present substantial evidence to send a factual dispute to the jury.

Alabama Corrections Institution Finance Authority v. Wilson · filed 2015-09-25

For actions filed after June 11,1987, the nonmovant must present “substantial evidence” in order to withstand a motion for a JML.

Section 12-21-12 requires a nonmovant to present substantial evidence to withstand a motion for judgment as a matter of law.

Universal Development Corporation v. Robbie Dellinger (Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court: CV-20-903743). · filed 2024-09-20

The nonmovant must have presented substantial evidence in order to withstand a motion for a JML. See § 12-21-12, Ala. Code 1975; West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So. 2d 870, 871 (Ala. 1989).

Section 12-21-12 requires substantial evidence to withstand a motion for a judgment as a matter of law.

Londell Marina, Jr. v. Bama Reinforcing, LLC (Appeal from Madison Circuit Court: CV-22-901025). · filed 2024-11-08

The nonmovant must have presented substantial evidence in order to withstand a motion for a JML. See § 12-21-12, Ala. Code 1975; West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So. 2d 870, 871 (Ala. 1989). ... Accordingly, the trial court erred in entering a judgment as a matter of law in Bama Reinforcing's favor.

Section 12-21-12(a) requires substantial evidence when a JNOV motion challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, just as it does for a directed-verdict motion.

Dunlop Tire Corp. v. Allen · filed 1998-10-02(a)

Like a motion for a directed verdict presented during trial, a JNOV motion challenging the sufficiency of the evidence is appraised by applying the "substantial evidence rule." § 12-21-12(a), Ala.Code 1975; Med Plus Properties v. Colcock Constr. Group, Inc., 628 So.2d 370, 373-74 (Ala.1993). The ultimate question is whether the party bearing the burden of proof presented substantial evidence in support of its position.

Section 12-21-12 applies the substantial evidence rule to challenges to the sufficiency of evidence raised by motions for directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

Star Freight, Inc. v. Sheffield · filed 1991-09-06

In Burroughs Corp. v. Hall Affiliates, Inc., 423 So.2d 1348, 1353-54 (Ala.1982), this Court stated: "[W]e reiterate the two standards utilized by this Court in reviewing evidentiary challenges: ... sufficiency of the evidence, raised by motions for directed verdict and for J.N.O.V. and measured by the objective "scintilla" ["substantial evidence" since June 11, 1987, see Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12] rule; ...' Casey v. Jones, 410 So.2d 5, 8 (Ala. 1982)." ... The introduction of the expert witness's testimony in this case created a factual issue for the jury concerning the proximate cause of Burney's death; thus, the trial court's denial of Star Freight's motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict was proper.

Section 12-21-12 governs appellate review of evidentiary sufficiency under the substantial evidence rule.

Resolution Trust Corp. v. Mooney · filed 1991-11-08

On appeal, this Court's review is governed by the substantial evidence rule. See Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12; West v. Founders Life Assur. Co. of Fla., 547 So.2d 870 (Ala.1989). ... The record provides substantial evidence to support the jury's finding of fraud; therefore, we find no error in the trial court's denial of RTC's motion for J.N.O.V.

Section 12-21-12 applies the substantial-evidence standard to a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict that challenges the sufficiency of the evidence.

Med Plus Properties v. COLCOCK CONST. · filed 1993-08-27(d)

A motion for JNOV challenging the sufficiency of the evidence is measured by the "substantial evidence" rule.

Under § 12-21-12, substantial evidence from which a jury could reasonably infer proximate cause is sufficient to withstand a judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

Wassman v. MOBILE CTY. COMMUN. DIST. · filed 1995-07-14

Our review of the record, however, convinces us that there was substantial evidence from which the jury could have reasonably inferred that the proximate cause of Michael Wassman's death was the conduct of the MCCD or its agents. Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12; West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870 (Ala.1989).

Section 12-21-12 requires a party opposing judgment as a matter of law to present substantial evidence creating a factual dispute for the jury.

Jim Bishop Chevrolet-Buick-Pontiac-GMC, Inc. v. Burden · filed 2016-05-06

The nonmov-ant must have presented substantial evidence in order to withstand a motion for a JML. ... Accordingly, we conclude that the Burdens failed to establish a breach of a duty owed them.

Section 12-21-12(a) requires substantial evidence before an issue of fact may be submitted to the trier of fact.

Little v. Consolidated Publishing Co. · filed 2011-05-13(a)

The evidence submitted by Little hardly constitutes substantial evidence indicating that CPC has instituted a campaign against him based on improper racial motivations. See § 12-21-12(a), Ala. Code 1975 (requiring proof of “substantial evidence” in order “to submit an issue of fact to the trier of the facts”); and West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala.1989) (defining “substantial evidence” 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 requires a party opposing a directed verdict to present substantial evidence creating a question for the jury.

Gewin v. TCF Asset Management Corp. · filed 1995-05-19

"In reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion for a directed verdict, the appellate court must determine whether the party having the burden of proof has produced substantial evidence creating a question requiring resolution by the jury." Bell v. Sugarwood Homes, Inc., 619 So.2d 1298, 1300 (Ala.1993). See Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12(d) requires substantial evidence to submit a factual issue to the jury; a scintilla is insufficient.

Martin v. LUKIE & FORNEY, INC. · filed 1989-05-19(d)

The complaint was filed September 23, 1987; therefore, pursuant to Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12, proof by substantial evidence is required to submit an issue to the trier of the facts. "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. A scintilla of evidence is insufficient to permit submission of an issue of fact to the trier of facts." Section 12-21-12(d). Consequently, in testing the sufficiency of the evidence to determine whether it will support the submission of an issue of fact to the jury, proof by substantial evidence is required.

Section 12-21-12 requires substantial evidence to submit an issue of fact to a jury in a civil action, including when opposing a directed verdict.

Casey v. Oliver · filed 1991-03-15

We begin our review by stating the law concerning the quantum of proof required in order for a party to defeat a motion for a directed verdict. Our law provides that "[i]n all civil actions ... proof by substantial evidence shall be required to submit an issue of fact to the trier of fact." Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12; see Ala.R.Civ.P. 50; Ex parte Oliver, 532 So.2d 627 (Ala.1988). ... Therefore, we can not say that, as a matter of law, there was no substantial evidence to show that Ms. Oliver violated her duty not to wantonly injure Felicia by leaving the medication in her bedroom in a container that the child could open.

Section 12-21-12 requires substantial evidence of each element of a claim before the claim may be submitted to a jury.

Williams v. Hughes Moving & Storage Co. · filed 1991-04-26

For Williams's claims to be submitted to the jury, he must produce "substantial evidence" of each element of his claims. Ala. Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12 requires substantial evidence supporting each element of a claim before the claim may go to the jury.

South Coast Properties, Inc. v. Schuster · filed 1991-06-07

Schuster's complaint was filed after June 11, 1987. Therefore, he was required to submit "substantial evidence" in support of each element of his cause of action in order for his claims to go to the jury. Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12 requires substantial evidence to submit a factual issue to a jury; a scintilla is insufficient.

Roszell v. Martin · filed 1991-07-26(d)

We note initially that in deciding whether there is sufficient evidence to submit an issue to a jury, proof by "substantial evidence" is now required in Alabama. See § 12-21-12, Ala.Code 1975. "A scintilla of evidence is insufficient to permit submission of an issue of fact to the trier of facts." § 12-21-12(d).

Section 12-21-12(a) requires substantial evidence before a claim may be submitted to the jury.

GMAC v. Covington · filed 1991-08-09(a)

At the outset, we point out that in order for Covington's claim of misrepresentation to be submitted to the jury, he must present "substantial evidence." Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12(a). ... We hold, therefore, that there was sufficient evidence presented to create a jury question as to whether Covington justifiably relied on the alleged representation, and the trial court properly submitted the case to the jury.

Section 12-21-12 requires substantial evidence of liability for a claim to reach the jury.

Parker v. Collins · filed 1992-10-09

Alabama law now requires that the plaintiff produce "substantial evidence" of liability. Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12. In this case, we find such evidence.

Section 12-21-12(a) requires substantial evidence before a bad faith insurance claim may be submitted to the jury.

Independent Fire Ins. Co. v. Lunsford · filed 1993-05-28(a)

Thus, in the absence of substantial evidence that an insurer lacked a "reasonably legitimate or arguable" reason to deny coverage, a trial court errs by submitting the issue of bad faith to the trier of the facts. § 12-21-12(a), Ala.Code 1975.

Section 12-21-12 requires substantial evidence to submit an issue of fact to the jury, including when the court rules on a motion for JNOV.

American Nat. Fire Ins. Co. v. Hughes · filed 1993-08-06(a)

Civil actions brought after June 11, 1987, are governed by § 12-21-12, Ala.Code 1975, which abolished the "scintilla rule"; that statute now requires proof by substantial evidence in order to submit an issue of fact to the trier of the facts. In ruling on a motion for a JNOV, the trial court is called upon to determine whether the evidence was sufficient to submit a question of fact to the jury; for the court to determine that it was, there must have been "substantial evidence" before the jury to create a question of fact. ... We have carefully reviewed the record in this case and the parties' briefs, and based on our review, we hold that fair-minded persons in the exercise of impartial judgment could reasonably have inferred that the language on the indorsement side of the draft was a mutual release, and that it was in full settlement of the claim.

Section 12-21-12 requires substantial evidence to submit an issue of fact to the trier of facts.

Latham v. Redding · filed 1993-09-17

Section 12-21-12, Ala.Code 1975, requires proof by "substantial evidence" in order to "submit an issue of fact to the trier of facts." ... We hold that the plaintiffs failed to submit substantial evidence that Redding acted negligently or wantonly.

Section 12-21-12 requires substantial evidence to submit an issue of fact to the jury.

Williams v. Bruno's, Inc. · filed 1993-12-30

Section 12-21-12, Ala.Code 1975, requires proof by "substantial evidence" in order to "submit an issue of fact to the trier of facts."

Section 12-21-12 requires substantial evidence creating a question of fact for a case to survive a directed-verdict or JNOV motion and go to a jury.

Ex Parte University of South Alabama · filed 1999-02-19

For the nonmovant to survive such a motion, and for the case to be submitted to a jury, there must be before the court substantial evidence creating a question of fact. See, id. 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." West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala.1989); see Towner (quoting West ) and see also § 12-21-12, Ala.Code 1975.

Section 12-21-12 abolished the scintilla rule for civil actions filed after June 11, 1987, and requires substantial evidence to submit a factual issue to the jury.

Lance, Inc. v. Ramanauskas · filed 1999-03-05

The scintilla rule was abolished as to civil actions filed after June 11, 1987. Ala. Code 1975, § 12-21-12.

Section 12-21-12(a) requires the nonmoving party to present substantial evidence before an issue may be submitted to a jury; otherwise, a directed verdict is proper.

Burns v. Marshall · filed 2000-03-24(a)

If he has not, then a directed verdict is proper. Bailey v. Avera, 560 So.2d 1038, 1039 (Ala.1990); see Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12(a). ... Because Grady Jr. failed to present substantial evidence of forgery, undue influence, or lack of testamentary capacity, the probate court should have directed a verdict for Beatrice Burns.

Section 12-21-12 requires substantial evidence to submit a factual issue to the jury when a party moves for judgment as a matter of law.

Williams v. Bic Corporation · filed 2000-05-05

Regarding questions of fact, the ultimate question is whether the nonmovant has presented substantial evidence to allow the factual issue to be submitted to the jury for resolution. Carter v. Henderson, 598 So.2d 1350 (Ala.1992). See also § 12-21-12, Ala. Code 1975, and West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala.1989).

Section 12-21-12(a) requires substantial evidence of each essential element before a claim may be submitted to a jury.

Ex Parte the Birmingham News, Inc. · filed 2000-06-09(a)

Watson did not present substantial evidence of publicity, and, thus, failed to establish the threshold element of her invasion-of-privacy claim. The trial court should have entered a judgment in favor of The News.