Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 Alabama opinions name it 1 courts 1972–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mulcahy v. Eli Lilly & Co.green2 sentences2014In Huck v. Trimark Physicians Group, 884 N.W.2d 82 (Iowa Ct.App.2013) (unpublished disposition), the Iowa Court of Appeals reaffirmed the settled, common-law rule that “ ‘a plaintiff in a products liability ease must prove that the injury-causing product was a product manufactured or supplied by the defendant.’ ” (Quoting Mulcahy v. Eli Lilly & Co., 386 N.W.2d 67, 76 (Iowa 1986).) Furthermore, much like decisions of this Court in the past, see, e.g., Pfizer, Inc. v. Farsian, 682 So.2d 405 (Ala.1996), the Huck court explained that plaintiffs who allege physical injuries caused by a product have 2014In Huck v. Trimark Physicians Group, 834 N.W.2d 82 (Iowa Ct. App. 2013) (unpublished disposition), the Iowa Court of 131 1101397 Appeals reaffirmed the settled, common-law rule that "'a plaintiff in a products liability case must prove that the injury-causing product was a product manufactured or supplied by the defendant.'" (Quoting Mulcahy v. Eli Lilly & Co., 386 N.W.2d 67, 76 (Iowa 1986).) Furthermore, much like decisions of this Court in the past, see, e.g., Pfizer, Inc. v. Farsian, 682 So. 2d 405 (Ala. 1996), the Huck court explained that plaintiffs who allege physical injuries caused by | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Finance America Corp.green1 sentence2003Similar consents were filed in the trial court. [4] The only evidence before the trial court at the time of its ruling on the motions to dismiss was the respondents' complaint, the motions to dismiss, and the affidavits of 25 witnesses stating that it would be more convenient if the cases were brought in Jackson County, Florida, rather than in Houston County, Alabama. [5] Both the respondents and Kia and Emerald state that the product-liability and negligence and wantonness claims against Kia arose in Florida. [6] The respondents' breach-of-warranty claim against Kia and the products-liability | 1 | 1 |
Capitol Chevrolet, Inc. v. Smedleygreen2 sentences2000See Capitol Chevrolet, Inc. v. Smedley , 614 So.2d 439 (Ala. 1993). 2000See Capitol Chevrolet, Inc. v. Smedley, 614 So.2d 439 (Ala.1993). | 1 | 1 |
Palmer v. AH Robins Co., Inc.green1 sentence1987Robins Co., 684 P.2d 187, 217 (Colo.1984), plaintiff filed a products liability claim to recover compensatory and punitive damages from the manufacturer of an intrauterine device. | 1 | 1 |
Birmingham Chero-Cola Bottling Co. v. Clarkgreen2 sentences1972See Birmingham Chero-cola Co. v. Clark, 205 Ala. 678 , 89 So. 64 (1921). 1972See Birmingham Chero-cola Co. v. Clark, 205 Ala. 678 , 89 So. 64 (1921). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Johnson ex rel. Estate of Blackmon v. Chrysler Canada Inc.
green
1 sentence2016Therefore, the Court finds that the cause of action arises out of GM Canada’s forum-related contacts.”) The fact that the subject automobile was sold in Alabama was not mentioned as important to the Johnson court’s conclusion that “Chrysler Canada has constitutionally cognizable contacts with the State of Alabama.” 24 F.Supp.3d at 1141 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Hines v. Riverside Chevrolet-Olds, Inc.
green
1 sentence2014In Carter v. Chrysler Corp., 743 So.2d 456 (Ala.Civ.App.1998), the Court of Civil Appeals, quoting Hines v. Riverside Chevroletr-Olds, Inc., 655 So.2d 909 (Ala. 1994), 10 noted: “ ‘Our case law, however, makes it very clear that in an action alleging suppression of a material fact, a duty to disclose may be owed to a person with whom one has not had a contractual relationship or other dealings “ ‘The extent of a legal duty not to make a false representation or to suppress a material fact informs our analysis of whether two parties have a sufficient relationship on which to base a duty to discl | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Carter v. Chrysler Corp.
green
2 sentences2014In Carter v. Chrysler Corp., 743 So.2d 456 (Ala.Civ.App.1998), the Court of Civil Appeals, quoting Hines v. Riverside Chevroletr-Olds, Inc., 655 So.2d 909 (Ala. 1994), 10 noted: “ ‘Our case law, however, makes it very clear that in an action alleging suppression of a material fact, a duty to disclose may be owed to a person with whom one has not had a contractual relationship or other dealings “ ‘The extent of a legal duty not to make a false representation or to suppress a material fact informs our analysis of whether two parties have a sufficient relationship on which to base a duty to discl 2014In Carter v. Chrysler Corp., 743 So. 2d 456 (Ala. Civ. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Pfizer, Inc. v. Farsian
green
2 sentences2014Wyeth argues, based on Pfizer, Inc. v. Farsian, 682 So. 2d 405 (Ala. 1996), that a plaintiff who in substance alleges physical injury caused by a product has a products-liability claim, no matter the label or labels he uses in his complaint, and that, in a products-liability claim, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant manufactured the product the plaintiff claims injured him or her. 2014In Huck v. Trimark Physicians Group, 834 N.W.2d 82 (Iowa Ct. App. 2013) (unpublished disposition), the Iowa Court of 131 1101397 Appeals reaffirmed the settled, common-law rule that "'a plaintiff in a products liability case must prove that the injury-causing product was a product manufactured or supplied by the defendant.'" (Quoting Mulcahy v. Eli Lilly & Co., 386 N.W.2d 67, 76 (Iowa 1986).) Furthermore, much like decisions of this Court in the past, see, e.g., Pfizer, Inc. v. Farsian, 682 So. 2d 405 (Ala. 1996), the Huck court explained that plaintiffs who allege physical injuries caused by | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Williams v. State
green
1 sentence2002The court then quoted Miller v. Allstate Insurance Co. , 650 So.2d 671 , 673-74 *Page 242 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1995), stating that "`where a viable means exists to pursue the underlying products liability claim, that cause of action must be pursued prior to, or together with, the spoliation of evidence claim.'" Yoder , 785 So.2d at 681 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Miller v. Allstate Ins. Co.
green
1 sentence2002The court then quoted Miller v. Allstate Insurance Co. , 650 So.2d 671 , 673-74 *Page 242 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1995), stating that "`where a viable means exists to pursue the underlying products liability claim, that cause of action must be pursued prior to, or together with, the spoliation of evidence claim.'" Yoder , 785 So.2d at 681 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Smith v. Atkinson
green
1 sentence2001However, we recognize our decision in Smith v. Atkinson , 771 So.2d 429 , 434 (Ala. 2000), in which we stated, "In Alabama, a products-liability claim relating to a defective automobile is properly disposed of on a motion for summary judgment if the automobile in question is not available and the plaintiff has no other means of proving the alleged defect ." (Emphasis added.) Therefore, we address the plaintiffs' argument concerning the sufficiency of their evidence as it relates to their "other means of proving the alleged defect." II. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
General Motors Corp. v. Edwards
green
2 sentences1991The products liability claim in the instant case is consistent with the "crashworthiness doctrine" referred to in General Motors Corp. v. Edwards , 482 So.2d 1176 (Ala. 1985). 1991The products liability claim in the instant case is consistent with the "crashworthiness doctrine" referred to in General Motors Corp. v. Edwards, 482 So.2d 1176 (Ala. 1985). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.