10 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2014 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Havard v. PALMER & BAKER ENGINEERS, INC.green2 sentences1989Plaintiff also contends that if we apply the foreseeability test of duty this Court used in Havard v. Palmer Baker Engineers, Inc. , 293 Ala. 301 , 307 , 302 So.2d 228 , 232 (1974), overruled in part by Ex parte Insurance Co. of North America , 523 So.2d 1064 (Ala. 1988), we would reverse the summary judgment. 1989Plaintiff also contends that if we apply the foreseeability test of duty this Court used in Havard v. Palmer Baker Engineers, Inc. , 293 Ala. 301 , 307 , 302 So.2d 228 , 232 (1974), overruled in part by Ex parte Insurance Co. of North America , 523 So.2d 1064 (Ala. 1988), we would reverse the summary judgment. | 1 | 5 |
Windsor v. SPINNER INDUSTRY CO., LTD.green1 sentence2014Co., 825 F.Supp.2d 632, 638 (D.Md.2011) (construing McIntyre “as rejecting the foreseeability standard of personal jurisdiction, but otherwise leaving the legal landscape untouched”). | 1 | 1 |
Duke v. Younggreen1 sentence1987In Duke v. Young, 496 So.2d 37, 39 (Ala.1986), this Court stated: "Crucial to the analysis is the element of foreseeability of the consequences of the defendant's activities. | 1 | 1 |
Zeigler v. Blount Bros. Const. Co.green2 sentences1984According to the plaintiffs, the trial court could not have granted summary judgment for defendants if it had applied the foreseeability test of duty this Court used in Havard v. Palmer & Baker Engineers, Inc., 293 Ala. 301, 307 , 302 So.2d 228, 232 (1974): "The ultimate test of the existence of a duty to use care is found in the foreseeability that harm may result if care is not exercised." In Zeigler v. Blount Brothers Construction Co., 364 So.2d 1163, 1167 (Ala.1978), this Court elaborated on Havard , stating: "Havard dealt with a contract between an engineering firm and the City of Mobile. 1984According to the plaintiffs, the trial court could not have granted summary judgment for defendants if it had applied the foreseeability test of duty this Court used in Havard v. Palmer Baker Engineers, Inc. , 293 Ala. 301 , 307 , 302 So.2d 228 , 232 (1974): "The ultimate test of the existence of a duty to use care is found in the foreseeability that harm may result if care is not exercised." In Zeigler v. Blount Brothers Construction Co. , 364 So.2d 1163 , 1167 (Ala. 1978), this Court elaborated on Havard , stating: "Havard dealt with a contract between an engineering firm and the City of Mob | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson
green
2 sentences2014Contrary to Edgetech’s argument, the United States Supreme Court’s decision in McIntyre does not squarely indicate that that Court has rejected the stream-of-commerce test articulated in World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 , 100 S.Ct. 559 , 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980), and Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 , 105 S.Ct. 2174 , 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985), or the test for personal jurisdiction adopted by this Court in Ex parte DBI. 2014Contrary to Edgetech’s argument, the United States Supreme Court’s decision in McIntyre does not squarely indicate that that Court has rejected the stream-of-commerce test articulated in World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 , 100 S.Ct. 559 , 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980), and Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 , 105 S.Ct. 2174 , 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985), or the test for personal jurisdiction adopted by this Court in Ex parte DBI. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz
green
2 sentences2014Contrary to Edgetech’s argument, the United States Supreme Court’s decision in McIntyre does not squarely indicate that that Court has rejected the stream-of-commerce test articulated in World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 , 100 S.Ct. 559 , 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980), and Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 , 105 S.Ct. 2174 , 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985), or the test for personal jurisdiction adopted by this Court in Ex parte DBI. 2014Contrary to Edgetech’s argument, the United States Supreme Court’s decision in McIntyre does not squarely indicate that that Court has rejected the stream-of-commerce test articulated in World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 , 100 S.Ct. 559 , 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980), and Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 , 105 S.Ct. 2174 , 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985), or the test for personal jurisdiction adopted by this Court in Ex parte DBI. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Gallick v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad
green
2 sentences2001Id. at 109-13 , 83 S.Ct. at 661-63 . 2001Id. at 109-13 , 83 S.Ct. at 661-63 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Williams v. Citizens Bank of Guntersville
green
1 sentence1992Williams v. Citizens Bank of Guntersville , 350 So.2d 1031 , 1033 (Ala. 1977). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Citizens State Bank v. Timm, Schmidt & Co.
green
2 sentences1989Rosenblum, Inc. v. Adler , 93 N.J. 324 , 461 A.2d 138 (1983)); and Wisconsin ( Citizens' State Bank v. Timm, Schmidt Co. S.C. , 113 Wis.2d 376 , 335 N.W.2d 361 (1983)), have adopted the foreseeability standard that Colonial urges us to adopt. 1989Rosenblum, Inc. v. Adler , 93 N.J. 324 , 461 A.2d 138 (1983)); and Wisconsin ( Citizens' State Bank v. Timm, Schmidt Co. S.C. , 113 Wis.2d 376 , 335 N.W.2d 361 (1983)), have adopted the foreseeability standard that Colonial urges us to adopt. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
H. Rosenblum, Inc. v. Adler
green
2 sentences1989Rosenblum, Inc. v. Adler , 93 N.J. 324 , 461 A.2d 138 (1983)); and Wisconsin ( Citizens' State Bank v. Timm, Schmidt Co. S.C. , 113 Wis.2d 376 , 335 N.W.2d 361 (1983)), have adopted the foreseeability standard that Colonial urges us to adopt. 1989Rosenblum, Inc. v. Adler , 93 N.J. 324 , 461 A.2d 138 (1983)); and Wisconsin ( Citizens' State Bank v. Timm, Schmidt Co. S.C. , 113 Wis.2d 376 , 335 N.W.2d 361 (1983)), have adopted the foreseeability standard that Colonial urges us to adopt. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Ex Parte Ins. Co. of North America
green
1 sentence1989Plaintiff also contends that if we apply the foreseeability test of duty this Court used in Havard v. Palmer Baker Engineers, Inc. , 293 Ala. 301 , 307 , 302 So.2d 228 , 232 (1974), overruled in part by Ex parte Insurance Co. of North America , 523 So.2d 1064 (Ala. 1988), we would reverse the summary judgment. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.