Skip to main content

Hicks v. Hicks

Citations

  • 130 So. 3d 184
  • 2012 WL 4040389
  • 2012 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 251

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that, because in a contempt action arising from a boundary-line dispute no filing fee had accompanied the filing of 10 CL-2025-0743 the motion for contempt, the trial court had lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and its order was void
  • plurality 6The Alabama Supreme Court has found that the filing of a postjudgment contempt motion and the payment of a filing fee initiates an independent action. Ex parte SE Prop. Holdings, LLC, 353 So. 3d 533, 537 (Ala. 2021

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Bryan, Moore, Pittman, Thomas, Thompson, Writing

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

14 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

31 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.