Rule 1. Scope of rules

Scope of Rules.

(a) Scope. These rules govern procedure in the circuit courts and in courts of full, like jurisdiction, in the district courts as provided in subparagraph "(dc)" of each rule, in the small claims courts as provided in Rule N of the Alabama Small Claims Rules, in probate courts so far as the application is appropriate and except as otherwise provided by statute, and in all other courts where appeals lie directly to the Supreme Court or the Court of Civil Appeals, in all actions of a civil nature, including those in which the State of Alabama or a political subdivision thereof is a party, whether cognizable as cases at law or in equity before the adoption of these Rules of Civil Procedure, and in proceedings enumerated in Rule 81.

(b) Effect. These rules effect an integrated procedural system vital to the efficient functioning of the courts.

(c) Construction. These rules shall be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action.

(dc) District court rule. Rule 1, consistent with the limitations appearing in Rule 1(a), applies in the district courts. [Amended 6-17-75; Amended 11-23-76, eff. 1-16-77; Amended eff.10-1-95; Amended 12-6-2012, eff. 1-1-2013.]

Committee Notes

Committee Comments on 1973 Adoption These rules apply only in courts where appeals lie directly to the Supreme Court or Court of Civil Appeals. They have no application in criminal proceedings. Nor do they apply to certain special statutory proceedings enumerated in Rule 81 except to the extent that the rules are not inconsistent with the statutes. These rules do govern procedure in the circuit courts on appeal to such courts from inferior courts and administrative agencies, except to the extent that a different procedure is required by statute. See Rule 81(a)(32). It has been said that the policy of rules such as these is to disregard technicality and form in order that the civil rights of litigants may be asserted and tried on the merits. Mitchell v. White Consolidated, Inc., 177 F.2d 500 (7th Cir.1949), cert. denied 339 U.S. 913, 70 S.Ct. 574, 94 L.Ed. 1339. The last sentence of this rule, read in conjunction with Rules 8(f) and 61, states a mandate of construction of the rules which is intended to implement that policy. It has long been settled in this state that when the legislature adopts a federal statute or the statute of another state, it adopts also the construction which the courts of such jurisdiction have placed on the statute. Ex parte Huguley Water System, 282 Ala. 633, 213 So.2d 799 (1968); Ex parte Thackston, 275 Ala. 424, 155 So.2d 526 (1963); Travis v. Hubbard, 267 Ala. 670, 104 So.2d 712 (1958); Wooten v. Roden, 260 Ala. 606, 71 So.2d 802 (1954); Ex parte Ashton, 231 Ala. 497, 165 So. 773 (1936). These rules represent an adaptation to the Alabama practice of rules of civil procedure already adopted for the federal courts and by many states. Amendment of June 17, 1975 By letter of December 22, 1972, the late Jack C. Gallalee of Mobile called the Court’s attention to two situations wherein probate courts in Alabama had been vested with equity jurisdiction. See, specifically, App. §§ 706-712, Code of Alabama (Mobile County) and App. § 1049(230)-1049