Rule 83. Local court rules

Local court rules. All local rules are abolished effective April 14, 1992, and no local rules shall thereafter be permitted. [Amended 1-6-87, eff. 9-1-87; Amended eff. 10-4-89; Amended eff. 8-1-92; Amended 9-20-2018.]

Committee Notes

Committee Comments on 1973 Adoption In Brown v. McKnight, 216 Ala. 660, 114 So. 40 (1927), the inherent rule- making power of the circuit courts was recognized. Code of Ala., Tit. 7, § 291 recognizes the propriety of local rules which are not contrary to law or inconsistent with the rules established by the Supreme Court. Tit. 13, § 162, Code of Ala., also recognizes the propriety of local rules. Equity Rule 119 also permits local rules not inconsistent with the equity rules, the statutes, or other laws of the State of Alabama. An inherent limitation upon the scope of local rulemaking power is the repeated requirement in the Alabama code that such local rules be not inconsistent with statutes or rules established by the Supreme Court. Rule 83 does not alter this proposition. However, it does add a new requirement that such rules cannot become effective until approved by the Supreme Court of Alabama. As a practical matter, it is difficult to assume that the practitioner will press for appellate review of many local rules of court which, in effect, may be inconsistent with these rules. This procedure will not only assure uniform applicability of these rules, but also will provide a central depository for all local rules for the various circuits. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure during its various stages of drafting, in the late 30’s, did contain a provision for the approval of local district court rules by the Judges of the Court of Appeals in that circuit. The final report of the Federal Rules Advisory Committee in 1937 did not contain the requirement that local rules be submitted to the Circuit Judges and the Supreme Court of the United States promulgated Rule 83 with the requirement that it only be approved by a majority of the Judges of the District Court. For purposes of Alabama practice, retention of appellate control over local rules, at least in the first few years of applicability of these rules, seems appropriate. Inasmuch as these rules cover, rather ad