14 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Alabama courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Moore v. Glovergreen2 sentences2008Co. v. Phillips, 491 So.2d 904, 908 (Ala.1986) (holding that `the longstanding damages rule followed in [ Garrett ]' was applicable in a case involving an injury sustained from exposure to cotton fibers); Moore v. Glover, 501 So.2d 1187, 1190 (Ala.1986) ('[T]his Court's opinion in [ Garrett ] settled the question of the "accrual" of a plaintiff's claim in a radiation exposure case for purposes of determining when the applicable statute of limitations begins to run....'); Hillis v. Rentokil, Inc., 596 So.2d 888, 890 (Ala.1992) (applying the rule in Garrett that the statute of limitations begins 2007Co. v. Phillips, 491 So.2d 904, 908 (Ala.1986) (holding that "the longstanding damages rule followed in [ Garrett ]" was applicable in a case involving an injury sustained from exposure to cotton fibers); Moore v. Glover, 501 So.2d 1187, 1190 (Ala.1986) ("[T]his Court's opinion in [ Garrett ], settled the question of the `accrual' of a plaintiff's claim in a radiation exposure case for purposes of determining when the applicable statute of limitations begins to run. . . ."); Hillis v. Rentokil, Inc., 596 So.2d 888, 890 (Ala.1992) (applying the rule in Garrett that the statute of limitations be | 2 | 2 |
Hillis v. Rentokil, Inc.green2 sentences2008Co. v. Phillips, 491 So.2d 904, 908 (Ala.1986) (holding that `the longstanding damages rule followed in [ Garrett ]' was applicable in a case involving an injury sustained from exposure to cotton fibers); Moore v. Glover, 501 So.2d 1187, 1190 (Ala.1986) ('[T]his Court's opinion in [ Garrett ] settled the question of the "accrual" of a plaintiff's claim in a radiation exposure case for purposes of determining when the applicable statute of limitations begins to run....'); Hillis v. Rentokil, Inc., 596 So.2d 888, 890 (Ala.1992) (applying the rule in Garrett that the statute of limitations begins 2007Co. v. Phillips, 491 So.2d 904, 908 (Ala.1986) (holding that "the longstanding damages rule followed in [ Garrett ]" was applicable in a case involving an injury sustained from exposure to cotton fibers); Moore v. Glover, 501 So.2d 1187, 1190 (Ala.1986) ("[T]his Court's opinion in [ Garrett ], settled the question of the `accrual' of a plaintiff's claim in a radiation exposure case for purposes of determining when the applicable statute of limitations begins to run. . . ."); Hillis v. Rentokil, Inc., 596 So.2d 888, 890 (Ala.1992) (applying the rule in Garrett that the statute of limitations be | 2 | 2 |
American Mut. Liability Ins. Co. v. Phillipsgreen2 sentences2008Co. v. Phillips, 491 So.2d 904, 908 (Ala.1986) (holding that `the longstanding damages rule followed in [ Garrett ]' was applicable in a case involving an injury sustained from exposure to cotton fibers); Moore v. Glover, 501 So.2d 1187, 1190 (Ala.1986) ('[T]his Court's opinion in [ Garrett ] settled the question of the "accrual" of a plaintiff's claim in a radiation exposure case for purposes of determining when the applicable statute of limitations begins to run....'); Hillis v. Rentokil, Inc., 596 So.2d 888, 890 (Ala.1992) (applying the rule in Garrett that the statute of limitations begins 2007Co. v. Phillips, 491 So.2d 904, 908 (Ala.1986) (holding that "the longstanding damages rule followed in [ Garrett ]" was applicable in a case involving an injury sustained from exposure to cotton fibers); Moore v. Glover, 501 So.2d 1187, 1190 (Ala.1986) ("[T]his Court's opinion in [ Garrett ], settled the question of the `accrual' of a plaintiff's claim in a radiation exposure case for purposes of determining when the applicable statute of limitations begins to run. . . ."); Hillis v. Rentokil, Inc., 596 So.2d 888, 890 (Ala.1992) (applying the rule in Garrett that the statute of limitations be | 2 | 2 |
Wright v. Hatley Health Care, Inc.green1 sentence2016Although the Clarks moved to "dismiss” the damages claim at the conclusion of the proceedings, the correct motion is now a " ‘motion for judgment on partial findings.’ ” Wright v. Hatley Health Care, Inc., 980 So.2d 1024, 1029 (Ala.Civ.App.2007) ("Rule 52(c)[, Ala. R. | 1 | 1 |
Keith v. Moonegreen1 sentence2016See Ex parte Family Dollar Stores of Alabama, Inc., 906 So.2d 892, 896 (Ala.2005) (“ ‘A default judgment that reserves the assessment of damages is interlocutory and may be set aside at any time; once the trial court assesses damages on the default judgment, the judgment becomes final.’ ” (quoting Keith v. Moone, 771 So.2d 1014, 1017 (Ala.Civ.App.1997), rev’d on other. grounds, Ex parte Keith, 771 So.2d 1018 (Ala.1998))); Palmer v. SunBank & Trust Co., 689 So.2d 152, 153 (Ala.Civ.App.1996)(“the order of ejectment awarding possession without addressing the pending damages claim is not a final a | 1 | 1 |
Palmer v. Sunbank and Trust Co.green1 sentence2016See Ex parte Family Dollar Stores of Alabama, Inc., 906 So.2d 892, 896 (Ala.2005) (“ ‘A default judgment that reserves the assessment of damages is interlocutory and may be set aside at any time; once the trial court assesses damages on the default judgment, the judgment becomes final.’ ” (quoting Keith v. Moone, 771 So.2d 1014, 1017 (Ala.Civ.App.1997), rev’d on other. grounds, Ex parte Keith, 771 So.2d 1018 (Ala.1998))); Palmer v. SunBank & Trust Co., 689 So.2d 152, 153 (Ala.Civ.App.1996)(“the order of ejectment awarding possession without addressing the pending damages claim is not a final a | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Family Dollar Stores of Alabama, Inc.green1 sentence2016See Ex parte Family Dollar Stores of Alabama, Inc., 906 So.2d 892, 896 (Ala.2005) (“ ‘A default judgment that reserves the assessment of damages is interlocutory and may be set aside at any time; once the trial court assesses damages on the default judgment, the judgment becomes final.’ ” (quoting Keith v. Moone, 771 So.2d 1014, 1017 (Ala.Civ.App.1997), rev’d on other. grounds, Ex parte Keith, 771 So.2d 1018 (Ala.1998))); Palmer v. SunBank & Trust Co., 689 So.2d 152, 153 (Ala.Civ.App.1996)(“the order of ejectment awarding possession without addressing the pending damages claim is not a final a | 1 | 1 |
Metcalf v. Pentagon Federal Credit Uniongreen1 sentence2015Credit Union, 155 So.3d 256, 260 (Ala.Civ.App.2014) (holding that an order awarding possession of property to a litigant but not addressing a damages claim was nonfinal but that, because it was certified as final pursuant to Rule 54(b), Ala. R. | 1 | 1 |
Lightsey v. Kensington Mortgage and Finance Corp.green2 sentences1978A jury would be impaneled to hear the evidence on such petition and determine whether damages, compensatory or punitive, should, under the usual rules, be imposed." 294 Ala., at 288 , 315 So.2d at 437. *Page 1119 Thus, we specifically held that the damages hearing is part of the main proceeding. 1978A jury would be impaneled to hear the evidence on such petition and determine whether damages, compensatory or punitive, should, under the usual rules, be imposed." 294 Ala., at 288 , 315 So.2d at 437. *Page 1119 Thus, we specifically held that the damages hearing is part of the main proceeding. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Tyson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.
green
2 sentences1986With reference to the question of the damages where the claim is filed within the limitations period set out in 80-566, the statute specifically allows such damages, stating: "`It is the intent of the Legislature that all Alabama citizens suffering the effects of any long-term disease process covered by this Bill should not be prevented by any statute of limitations from recovering the full measure of damages proximately caused by a third party tortfeasor which are allowable under any civil theory of liability, provided action is brought within the statutory period of limitation from the date 1986With reference to the question of the damages where the claim is filed within the limitations period set out in 80-566, the statute specifically allows such damages, stating: "`It is the intent of the Legislature that all Alabama citizens suffering the effects of any long-term disease process covered by this Bill should not be prevented by any statute of limitations from recovering the full measure of damages proximately caused by a third party tortfeasor which are allowable under any civil theory of liability, provided action is brought within the statutory period of limitation from the date | 2 | 1983–1986 |
COLBERT COUNTY-NORTHWEST ALA. v. Nix
green
1 sentence2025In Hood[,] the Alabama Supreme Court reversed the trial court's order granting new trial upon a finding that a juror did not disclose two prior collections suits totaling $2,700.00: " 'The difference between the circumstances in [Colbert County-Northwest Alabama Healthcare Authority v. Nix, 678 So. 2d 719 (Ala. 1995),] and the circumstances in this case only widens when one considers the element of "materiality." The present action involves a wrongful death in which the damages claim was substantial. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Ex Parte S. Palmer Keith
green
1 sentence2016See Ex parte Family Dollar Stores of Alabama, Inc., 906 So.2d 892, 896 (Ala.2005) (“ ‘A default judgment that reserves the assessment of damages is interlocutory and may be set aside at any time; once the trial court assesses damages on the default judgment, the judgment becomes final.’ ” (quoting Keith v. Moone, 771 So.2d 1014, 1017 (Ala.Civ.App.1997), rev’d on other. grounds, Ex parte Keith, 771 So.2d 1018 (Ala.1998))); Palmer v. SunBank & Trust Co., 689 So.2d 152, 153 (Ala.Civ.App.1996)(“the order of ejectment awarding possession without addressing the pending damages claim is not a final a | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Drummond Co. v. Alabama Department of Transportation
green
1 sentence2013This Court stated: “This Court did recognize in Drummond [Co. v. Alabama Department of Transportation, 937 So.2d 56 (Ala.2006),] that ‘ “actions for injunction or damages brought against State officials in their representative capacity and individually where it was alleged that they had acted fraudulently, in bad faith, beyond their authority or in a mistaken interpretation of law”’ are not prohibited by § 14. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Hilliard v. City of Huntsville
green
1 sentence2010Finally, the city defendants argued that the doctrine of substantive immunity, as outlined in Rich v. City of Mobile, 410 So.2d 385 (Ala.1982), and Hilliard v. City of Huntsville, 585 So.2d 889 (Ala.1991), barred the BSA plaintiffs’ damages claim. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Rich v. City of Mobile
green
1 sentence2010Finally, the city defendants argued that the doctrine of substantive immunity, as outlined in Rich v. City of Mobile, 410 So.2d 385 (Ala.1982), and Hilliard v. City of Huntsville, 585 So.2d 889 (Ala.1991), barred the BSA plaintiffs’ damages claim. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Williams
green
1 sentence2008Because there was no competent evidence to support the damages claim, the supreme court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for the entry of a JML for the insurer. 926 So.2d at 1018 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Kirtland v. Fort Morgan Auth. Sewer Serv., Inc.
green
1 sentence2004Facts relating to these issues have not been able to be developed through discovery and presented to the Court and would give grounds to another `meritorious defense' under Kirtland [v. Fort Morgan Authority Sewer Service, Inc. , 524 So.2d 600 (Ala. 1988)]." Lifestar argues to this Court that there was no medical evidence presented to Judge Price at the damages hearing to "substantiate the cause of death as being a breach of the standard of care by the medics providing service at the scene and in route to the hospital." (Lifestar's brief, p. 47.) Given the testimony of Dallas Johnson at the da | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Vestavia Country Club v. Armstrong
green
2 sentences1996Vestavia Country Club v. Armstrong, 271 Ala. 294 , 123 So.2d 130 (1960). 1996Vestavia Country Club v. Armstrong, 271 Ala. 294 , 123 So.2d 130 (1960). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Satterfield v. Winston Industries, Inc.
green
1 sentence1991Satterfield v. Winston Industries, Inc., 553 So.2d 61 (Ala. 1989). [2] On March 17, 1989, the trial court amended that order to provide for a register's deed instead of a general warranty deed. [3] After the damages hearing, the trial court, on September 7, 1990, set aside the award of attorney fees and reduced the amount of damages previously awarded to $25,000. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Cazalas v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.
green
2 sentences1986Based on the stated intention of the framers of the act to allow plaintiffs who are able to state a cause of action to recover a `full measure of damages,' we rule that the plaintiffs should not be limited to a recovery for injuries occurring after May 19, 1979, but should be allowed to recover for all injuries proximately caused by exposure to asbestos." (Emphasis in original.) 435 So.2d at 57-58 . 1986Based on the stated intention of the framers of the act to allow plaintiffs who are able to state a cause of action to recover a `full measure of damages,' we rule that the plaintiffs should not be limited to a recovery for injuries occurring after May 19, 1979, but should be allowed to recover for all injuries proximately caused by exposure to asbestos." (Emphasis in original.) 435 So.2d at 57-58 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Garrett v. Raytheon Co., Inc.
green
2 sentences1986In Garrett , 368 So.2d at 521 , a majority of this court followed specifically Garren v. Commercial Union Ins. 1986In Garrett, 368 So.2d at 521 , a majority of this court followed specifically Garren v. Commercial Union Ins. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.