Formal exceptions to rulings or orders of the court are unnecessary; but for all purposes for which an exception has heretofore been necessary it is sufficient that a party, at the time the ruling or order of the court is made or sought, makes known to the court the action which the party desires the court to take or the party’s objection to the action of the court and the grounds therefor; and, if a party has no opportunity to object to a ruling or order at the time it is made, the absence of an objection does not thereafter prejudice the party.
Rule 46.Exceptions unnecessary.
Last verified July 6, 2026
In one sentenceRule 46 abolishes the old requirement of taking a formal exception to a court's ruling, and instead makes clear that telling the court what you want it to do (or object to) and why, at the time it matters, is all that is needed to preserve the issue.
Full Text of Rule 46
(dc) District court rule. Rule 46 does not apply in the district courts unless a party has provided for a transcript of the proceeding and review by an appellate court is appropriate.
Amendment History
[Amended eff. 10-1-95.]
Committee Comments
Committee Comments on 1973 Adoption
This rule is identical with Federal Rule 46. See Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, Civil, § 2471 et seq. (1971). Hence, if the court takes action contrary to that requested by a party or overrules his objection, the senseless ritual of noting an exception is unnecessary. For example, defendants requested a directed verdict which was denied. There was no requirement for notation of an exception in order to challenge the denial of the motion for directed verdict on appeal. Mitzner v. Baylies, 424 F.2d 814 (D.C.Cir.1970).
However, doing away with exceptions does not eliminate the necessity for making known to the court the action that a party seeks from the court or the objection to the action of the court and the grounds therefor. Objections have the obvious purpose of apprising the court of the claimed error in order that it might be avoided. A party cannot sit silently as error is committed, speculating upon the verdict being in his favor, and then put the trial judge in error except in case of plainly prejudicial error. Ford v. United Gas Corp., 254 F.2d 817 (5th Cir.1958), cert. denied 358 U.S. 824, 79 S.Ct. 40, 3 L.Ed.2d 64 (1958).
Of course, Rule 46 applies to rulings on evidence, the formulation of issues for trial, the arguments of counsel, submission of the case to the jury and other matters throughout the trial, including Rule 51 instructions to the jury.
The requirement of an objection applies to questioning of a witness by the court. Bacon v. Kansas City Southern Ry., 373 F.2d 515 (5th Cir.1967). However, such objection should be sufficient if postponed until the next available opportunity when the jury is not present. See proposed Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 614(c), 51 F.R.D. 401.
This rule is quite similar to Tit. 7, § 818(1), Code of Ala., with the sole difference being the omission of the last clause of the Rule from the Alabama statute. No civil cases construing this clause have been found.
Note that the rule requires a statement of grounds of objection. Failure to state grounds makes the objection insufficient unless the ground is so manifest that the trial court and counsel cannot fail to understand it. McCormick, Evidence, 1972, § 52. Accord, Travis v. Hubbard, 267 Ala. 670, 104 So.2d 712 (1958), applying the quite similar provisions of Tit. 7, § 818(1). Counsel ought not to rely with great confidence upon the stock “incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial” ground. Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Wayne Broyles Engineering Corp., 351 F.2d 478, 483 (5th Cir.1965).
This rule supersedes a variety of Alabama statutes to the extent they heretofore applied to actions now covered by these rules.
Committee Comments to October 1, 1995, Amendment to Rule 46
The amendment is technical. No substantive change is intended.
Plain-English Summary
Older practice required a party who disagreed with a judge's ruling to follow up with a separate, formal statement called an exception, just to preserve the right to challenge that ruling later. Rule 46 gets rid of that extra step. A party no longer needs any special ritual or magic words after a ruling goes against them. What matters is that the party told the court, at the time of the ruling, what action it wanted the court to take or what it was objecting to, and why.
This matters in real trials because it keeps the focus on substance instead of formality. A lawyer who asks for a directed verdict and gets turned down does not also need to say “I except” to keep that issue alive for appeal. But the rule cuts both ways: a party still has to speak up in the moment and state the grounds for the objection in a way that lets the judge understand and fix the problem if it is real. Staying silent while a mistake happens, hoping to raise it only if the case turns out badly, does not work under this rule. The one exception runs in the other direction for fairness: if a party never gets a real chance to object when a ruling is made, staying silent at that moment does not later count against them.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do I still need to say "I except to that ruling" after a judge rules against me?
No. Rule 46 eliminates the formal exception. You only need to have made known to the court, at the time, what you wanted the court to do or what you were objecting to and why.
If I do not object to something during trial, can I still raise it later?
Generally no. Making a timely objection with the grounds stated is what preserves an issue, whether or not you use the word "exception." Sitting silently through an error and raising it only after an unfavorable result usually will not work.
Does Rule 46 apply to jury instructions and evidentiary rulings?
Yes. It covers rulings on evidence, how issues are framed for the jury, arguments of counsel, and jury instructions, along with rulings and orders generally throughout a trial.
What if I never had a chance to object when the ruling was made?
Rule 46 protects you in that situation. If a party has no opportunity to object to a ruling or order when it is made, the absence of an objection at that time does not later prejudice the party.
Source & verification. The rule text, amendment history, and Committee Comments are reproduced verbatim from the
official Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure (Ala. R. Civ. P. 46). Prescribed by the Supreme Court of Alabama (Ala. Const. amend. 328, § 6.11). The plain-English summary is original and written by us. Last verified July 6, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as: formal exceptions abolishedpreserving objections for appealexception unnecessary ruleAla. R. Civ. P. 46