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.
8 Alabama opinions name it 1 courts 1988–2011 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ex Parte Hoodgreen2 sentences2011As it was, Golden removed the ease to the federal court and proceeded as if it was preparing for a judicial resolution of Hood’s claim.’ “ Hood, supra. “In conclusion, when Ramsey’s Complaint was filed on November 3, 2005, these Defendants had in their possession an arbitration document, yet they proceeded to engage in litigation activities (including, notably, a legal fight over exactly where to actually litigate, and the filing of an Answer that did not assert a right to arbitration) until November 3, 2006, exactly one year after filing of the Complaint. 2006As it was, Golden removed the case to the federal court and proceeded as if it was preparing for a judicial resolution of Hood's claim." 712 So.2d at 346 (emphasis added). | 2 | 5 |
Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. Russellgreen2 sentences1988This Court's decision in Hood I , that the bad faith claim was not preempted, would be controlling but for the fact that, after we decided Hood I , the Supreme Court of the United States, in two cases, decided to the contrary; see Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Russell , 473 U.S. 134 , 105 S.Ct. 3085 , 87 L.Ed.2d 96 (1985), and Pilot Life Ins. 1988This Court's decision in Hood I , that the bad faith claim was not preempted, would be controlling but for the fact that, after we decided Hood I , the Supreme Court of the United States, in two cases, decided to the contrary; see Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Russell , 473 U.S. 134 , 105 S.Ct. 3085 , 87 L.Ed.2d 96 (1985), and Pilot Life Ins. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ex Parte Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.
green
2 sentences1998As authority for this proposition, Golden refers us to Ex parte Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner Smith, Inc. , 494 So.2d 1 (Ala. 1986). 1998As authority for this proposition, Golden refers us to Ex parte Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 494 So.2d 1 (Ala.1986). | 2 | 1998–1998 |
Hood v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America
green
1 sentence1988Hood , 460 So.2d 1227 , supra. The parties agree that the two issues presented by the appeal are whether the trial court erred in (1) granting appellee Prudential's motion to strike the claim for punitive damages and the jury demand in her bad-faith-failure-to-pay claim, and (2) granting summary judgment in favor of both appellees on the merits of Hood's claim for benefits (the contract claim). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.