Leath v. Wilson

17 Citing cases

  1. In re W.L.K.

    175 So. 3d 652 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015)   Cited 23 times
    Explaining that an order resolving an adoption contest but not resolving the entire adoption proceeding was an interlocutory order

    Moreover, it is โ€˜the duty of the Court to harmonize and reconcile all parts of a statute so that effect may be given to each and every part: conflicting intentions in the same statute are never to be supposed or so regarded unless forced on the Court by unambiguous language.โ€™ Leath v. Wilson, 238 Ala. 577, 579, 192 So. 417, 419 (1939). When construing the language of a statute, this court must presume โ€˜ โ€œ โ€˜that every word, sentence, or provision was intended for some useful purpose, has some force and effect, and that some effect is to be given to each, and also that no superfluous words or provisions were used.โ€™ โ€

  2. Ex parte W.L.K.

    2130890 (Ala. Civ. App. Nov. 7, 2014)

    In ascertaining legislative intent, we must look to the entire act instead of isolated phrases or clauses. Lambert v. Wilcox County Comm'n, 623 So. 2d 727, 729 (Ala. 1993). Moreover, it is 'the duty of the Court to harmonize and reconcile all parts of a statute so that effect may be given to each and every part: conflicting intentions in the same statute are never to be supposed or so regarded unless forced on the Court by unambiguous language.' Leath v. Wilson, 238 Ala. 577, 579, 192 So. 417, 419 (1939). When construing the language of a statute, this court must presume '"'that every word, sentence, or provision was intended for some useful purpose, has some force and effect, and that some effect is to be given to each, and also that no superfluous words or provisions were used.'"' Ex parte Uniroyal Tire Co., 779 So. 2d 227, 236 (Ala. 2000) (quoting Sheffield v. State, 708 So. 2d 899, 909 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997)).

  3. Austill v. Prescott

    293 So. 3d 333 (Ala. 2019)   Cited 9 times

    Neutering the last sentence of ยง 40-10-82 runs contrary to "the duty of the Court to harmonize and reconcile all parts of a statute so that effect may be given to each and every part: conflicting intentions in the same statute are never to be supposed or so regarded unless forced on the Court by unambiguous language." Leath v. Wilson, 238 Ala. 577, 579, 192 So. 417, 419 (1939). "[W]e must presume โ€˜ "that every word, sentence, or provision was intended for some useful purpose, has some force and effect, and that some effect is to be given to each, and also that no superfluous words or provisions were used.

  4. Ex parte T.C.M.

    222 So. 3d 360 (Ala. 2016)   Cited 2 times

    Such a construction of the two provisions is supported by the language used in the statutes, and it also meets our duty โ€˜ "to harmonize and reconcile all parts of a statute so that effect may be given to each and every part." โ€™ Hays [v. Hays] , 946 So.2d [867] at 877 [ (Ala.Civ.App.2006) ] (quoting Leath v. Wilson , 238 Ala. 577, 579, 192 So. 417, 419 (1939) )."Because we have concluded that the juvenile court's July 22, 2014, order transferring the adoption proceeding to the juvenile court is not proper under either ยง 26โ€“10Aโ€“24(e) or ยง 26โ€“10Aโ€“3, we grant the petition for the writ of mandamus and order the probate court to rescind its July 22, 2014, order transferring the adoption proceeding to the juvenile court and to comply with ยง 26โ€“10Aโ€“24(d) and ยง 26โ€“10Aโ€“24(h)."

  5. Perdue v. Green

    127 So. 3d 343 (Ala. 2013)   Cited 12 times
    Holding that, in spite of Appellant's claim that Appellees' itemized Westlaw searches included topics unrelated to the case, such search activity was reimbursable

    Section 16โ€“33Cโ€“7, Ala.Code 1975, lists various items each PACT contract must include, but it does not prescribe the exact terms, conditions, and provisions of those contracts, leaving that โ€œto the sole discretionโ€ of the PACT board. ยง 16โ€“33Cโ€“7(a)(11), Ala.Code 1975. โ€œ[C]onflicting intentions in the same statute are never to be supposed or so regarded unless forced on the Court by unambiguous language.โ€ Leath v. Wilson, 238 Ala. 577, 579, 192 So. 417, 419 (1939). The last clause of the first sentence of ยง 16โ€“33Cโ€“19 unambiguously limits the power of the PACT board to make unilateral changes to its โ€œrules, procedures, or policiesโ€; it does not unambiguously limit the power of the PACT board to perform any other authorized act, including the power to make bilateral contracts with PACT contract holders under either ยง 16โ€“33Cโ€“5(4) or ยง 16โ€“33Cโ€“7.

  6. Perdue ex rel. Perdue v. Green

    No. 1101337 (Ala. Mar. 16, 2012)   Cited 2 times
    In Perdue v. Green, 127 So.3d 343 (Ala.2012) (โ€œPerdue I โ€), this Court held that, โ€œto the extent the PACT Board acted to change its existing rules, procedures, or policies to accept modification of the PACT contracts,... it violated the contractual relationship with the PACT contract holders by exceeding the express limitation set out in ยง 16โ€“33Cโ€“19 [, Ala.Code 1975.]โ€ 127 So.3d at 357.

    "[C]conflicting intentions in the same statute are never to be supposed or so regarded unless forced on the Court by unambiguous language." Leath v. Wilson, 238 Ala. 577, 579, 192 So. 417 , 419 (1939). The last clause of the first sentence of ยง 16-33C-19 unambiguously limits the power of the PACT board to make unilateral changes to its "rules, procedures, or policies"; it does not unambiguously limit the power of the PACT board to perform any other authorized act, including the power to make bilateral contracts with PACT contract holders under either ยง 16-33C-5(4) or ยง 16-33C-7.

  7. Bentley Systems, Inc. v. Intergraph Corp.

    922 So. 2d 61 (Ala. 2005)   Cited 31 times
    Agreeing that counterclaim defendant cannot invoke doctrine of substantial performance as a defense against relief sought by counterclaim plaintiff "because it is not the party seeking relief, and that the doctrine of substantial performance simply has no applicability to the facts of this case"

    We do not read ยง 12-2-7(1) as unambiguously imposing on us a duty to weigh the evidence even when doing so would reach an unjust result. See Leath v. Wilson, 238 Ala. 577, 579, 192 So. 417, 419 (1939) ("The rule for interpreting an act of the legislature in this respect makes it the duty of the Court to harmonize and reconcile all parts of a statute so that effect may be given to each and every part: conflicting intentions in the same statute are never to be supposed or so regarded unless forced on the Court by unambiguous language."). IV. The Complaint (Intergraph Corporation v. Bentley Systems) โ€” Calculation of the Principal Amount of the NoteA.

  8. Carroll v. Alabama Public Service Commission

    281 Ala. 559 (Ala. 1968)   Cited 10 times

    Ala. Pub. Service Comm. v. Redwing Carriers, Inc., 199 So.2d 653. Effect and meaning must be given every word and phrase of a statute whenever possible. Ex parte Miles, 248 Ala. 386, 27 So.2d 777; Leath v. Wilson, 238 Ala. 577, 192 So. 417; Downing v. City of Russellville, 241 Ala. 494, 3 So.2d 34; 82 C.J.S. Statutes ยง 346. The failure of the Commission to meet and act as a body in the issuance of an order constitutes "misconduct" authorizing the introduction of evidence thereof in the Circuit Court on an appeal from such order.

  9. McMahan v. Yeilding

    120 So. 2d 429 (Ala. 1960)   Cited 4 times
    In McMahan, on facts very similar to those in the instant case, our Supreme Court held that the Personnel Board's dismissal of a state employee subsequent to the prior suspension of such employee by an appointing authority, for the same infraction, was not barred by res judicata.

    In construing statutes the court should look to the entire statute to determine the intent of the Legislature, and each part of the statute should be given effect and meaning, if possible, without doing violence to some other portion of the law. Ex parte State ex rel. King, 233 Ala. 318, 171 So. 892; Leath v. Wilson, 238 Ala. 577, 192 So. 417. SIMPSON, Justice.

  10. City of Montgomery v. Montgomery City Lines

    49 So. 2d 199 (Ala. 1950)   Cited 15 times

    Street v. Cloe, 207 Ala. 631, 93 So. 591; State ex rel. Wilkinson v. Lane, 181 Ala. 646, 62 So. 31. And in determining the intent, the rule as laid down by this Court in Mooring v. State ex rel. Braswell, 207 Ala. 34, 91 So. 869, 871, and followed in Ex parte Miles, 248 Ala. 386, 27 So.2d 777, is: "In construing laws it is the judicial disposition, as well as duty, to consider all related parts and provisions thereof that may contribute to disclose the legislative intent, and in so doing to give operation and effect to every provision, if fairly possible." See, also, Leath v. Wilson, 238 Ala. 577, 192 So. 417. The purpose of a statute will be illustrated by its origin, contemporaneous history, the prior condition of the law, as well as the general powers and course of legislation.