Rule 83.Local court rules.
Last amended September 20, 2018 · Last verified July 6, 2026
Full Text of Rule 83
Amendment History
[Amended 1-6-87, eff. 9-1-87; Amended eff. 10-4-89; Amended eff. 8-1-92; Amended 9-20-2018.]
Committee Comments
Committee Comments on 1973 Adoption
In Brown v. McKnight, 216 Ala. 660, 114 So. 40 (1927), the inherent rulemaking 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 adequately, all the major fields of procedure, as a general proposition, detailed and elaborate local court rules are not only unnecessary but undesirable. The last sentence of the rule eliminates the necessity for detailed standing rules. See 7 Moore’s Federal Practice and Procedure, ¶ 83.02, 2d ed. 1971.
Committee Comments to Rule 83 as Amended Effective September 1, 1987
This rule allows local courts to regulate practice in certain respects, provided that (1) the local rules or administrative orders are consistent with the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, and (2) proper notice is given in order to provide an opportunity for thoughtful comment.
There are two categories of permissible local court regulation under this rule. The narrowest is the “administrative order,” limited to specified subjects, which may be effective after notice but without prior Supreme Court approval. The broader “local rule,” for matters not within the scope of administrative orders, must be both published and approved by the Supreme Court since it may risk inconsistency with these rules. The Supreme Court retains power to amend or abrogate both local rules and administrative orders in the spirit of uniformity and consistency of practice.
Committee Comments to April 14, 1992, Amendment to Rule 83
The Committee feels that the proliferation of local rules throughout the state has done much to destroy the desired uniformity of these procedural rules. “Local rules” take many forms; they are often called “administrative procedures” or “court administrative orders.” However denominated, all such rules regulating practice or procedure are abolished, and no such rules will be permitted in the future.
The abolition of local rules does not prevent the trial court from issuing orders that are essential to the administration of its docket in areas outside the scope of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure.
Committee Comments to Rule 83, Adopted September 20, 2018
The committee remains concerned with the damage to uniformity that can result from local rules. However, the committee does not wish to discourage case- management plans for local circuits and believes that such plans do not violate Rule 83. Further, the recommendations of the Circuit Judges Time Standards Committee and the District Judges Time Standards Committee to be implemented by the courts and appropriate agencies of the Unified Judicial System strongly endorse case-management plans. Such plans can establish tracks with scheduling and discovery provisions that are appropriate for various types of litigation. In fact, the Jefferson Circuit Court has operated under a casemanagement plan for over 20 years with notable efficiency, and that plan (which serves as an example of a proper case-management plan) may be found on the Website of the Jefferson Circuit Court (http://10jc.alacourt.gov/DCMPRevision.html). To avoid any misunderstanding regarding the scope and intent of Rule 83, the committee notes that the language in the April 14, 1992, Amendment to Rule 83 or in the Committee Comments to that amendment is not intended to affect the validity of an appropriate casemanagement plan.
Any case-management plan is subject to the Supreme Court of Alabama’s general supervisory power to reject or to require amendment. Any circuit adopting a case-management plan shall ensure that it is published (including, but not limited to, being made available on the Web site of the circuit), so that the provisions of the case-management plan are readily available to the public.
Note from the reporter of decisions: The order adopting the Committee Comments effective September 20, 2018, is published in that volume of Alabama Reporter that contains Alabama cases from ___ So. 3d.
Plain-English Summary
Rule 83 states a flat prohibition: every local court rule in Alabama is abolished as of the date specified, and no local rules are permitted afterward. Whatever a particular circuit or county court had adopted on its own to govern practice before that judge or in that courthouse no longer has effect, and courts cannot replace those rules with new local ones going forward.
The purpose is uniformity. When individual courts are free to layer their own procedural requirements on top of the statewide rules, lawyers and litigants face a patchwork where the steps required to bring or defend a case shift depending on which county they happen to be in. Rule 83 closes off that path so that the same procedural rules apply no matter where in Alabama a case is filed.
Rule 83 does not stop a trial court from managing its own docket. Courts retain the ability to issue orders needed to run their calendars and administer the cases before them, so long as those orders address matters outside the scope of what the statewide rules already cover and do not amount to a standing local rule of procedure. This distinction lets courts handle practical scheduling and administrative needs without reviving the kind of freestanding local rulemaking that Rule 83 eliminates.
Frequently Asked Questions
Are local court rules still allowed in Alabama under Rule 83?
No. Rule 83 abolished all existing local court rules as of the date it took effect and prohibits any court from adopting new ones.
Why did Rule 83 eliminate local court rules?
To preserve uniform procedure across the state, so that the requirements for handling a civil case do not change depending on which county or courthouse the case is filed in.
Can a judge still issue orders about how their docket is run?
Yes. Rule 83 does not prevent a trial court from issuing orders necessary to administer its own docket in matters that fall outside what the statewide civil procedure rules already govern.
Does Rule 83 apply no matter what a local rule is called?
Yes. Whether a court’s internal procedure is labeled a local rule, an administrative procedure, or a court administrative order, Rule 83 treats it the same way if it regulates practice or procedure, and none of it is permitted.
Does Rule 83 prevent a circuit from using a case-management plan?
No. A case-management plan that sets up scheduling and discovery tracks for different types of litigation is not treated as a prohibited local rule, so circuits may continue to use such plans as long as they remain consistent with the statewide rules.