Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State ex rel. C.T.G. v. M.A.B.

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided July 17, 1998No. 1961520 and 1961531Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partCook, Justice

I concur with those portions of the lead opinion holding (1) that the statute of limitations does not bar M.A.B.’s petition to reopen the question of his paternity; (2) that Ala. Code 1975, § 26-17A-1, does not, when applied prospectively, violate the principle of separation of powers; and (3) that the “reasonable time” element of Ala. R. Civ. P. *67060(b)(6) is, in this class of cases, to be construed much more liberally than it has been in the past. I dissent, however, from that portion of the opinion holding that § 26-17A-1 violates the separation-of-powers principle if applied retroactively;…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Imbler v. PachtmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. Gagnon v. ScarpelliSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  3. Estes v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  4. Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. GilbertsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  5. Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1995

23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API