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.
7 Alabama opinions name it 1 courts 1998–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
Allen v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.green2 sentences2013Co., 59 F.Supp.2d 1217, 1227-29 (S.D.Ala.1999))). 2002Co., 59 F.Supp.2d 1217 (S.D.Ala.1999)(noting that although the plaintiffs state-law claim was barred by the doctrine of exclusive jurisdiction, by the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, and by the filed-rate doctrine, the outcome of the case may have been different if the plaintiff had claimed that the defendants had applied a rate in excess of that approved by the insurance commissioner); and Emperor Clock Co. v. AT & T Corp., 727 So.2d 41 (Ala.1998)(noting that because the plaintiff did not claim that the defendant had charged a rate in excess of the filed tariff, but instead claimed that the | 4 | 5 |
Birmingham Hockey Club, Inc. v. NCCI, INC.green2 sentences2013Describing the doctrine in a case involving an insurance rate approved by the commissioner, this Court has stated: ‘The filed-rate doctrine provides that once a filed rate is approved by the appropriate governing regulatory agency, it is per se- reasonable and is unassailable in judicial proceedings.’ Birmingham Hockey Club, Inc. v. National Council on Compensation Ins., Inc., 827 So.2d 73 , 78 n. 4 (Ala.2002) (emphasis added). 2013See Birmingham Hockey Club, 827 So.2d at 83 n. 11 (‘Because the filed-rate doctrine prohibits collateral challenges to rates properly approved by the insurance commissionér, any such challenge raised in the courts is due to be dismissed.’ (citing Allen v. State Farm Fire & Cas. | 1 | 3 |
Peacock v. Cincinnati Insurance Co.green2 sentences2013Specifically, Cincinnati arguéd “that the Commissioner of Insurance (‘the commissioner’) and the Alabama Department of Insurance (‘the Department’) have broad authority- over the matters made 'the subject of Peacock’s complaint; that Peacock -had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies; and that Peacock’s claims were barred by the filed-rate doctrine.” Ex parte Cincinnati, 51 So.3d at 301 . 2013Next, this Court concluded in Ex paHc Cincirmati Insurance Co. that the fíled-rate doctrine precluded judicial review of Peacock’s claims because the essence of his claims was that the commissioner improperly, approved Cincinnati’s forms and rating plans regarding ÜM coverage on more than three vehicles listed as covered vehicles in a Cincinnati policy. 51 So.3d at 305-06 (“‘The filed-rate doctrine provides that once a filed rate is approved by - the appropriate governing regulatory agency, it is per se reasonable and is-unassailable in judicial proceedings."’ (quoting Birmingham Hockey Club, | 1 | 1 |
QCC, INC. v. Hallgreen1 sentence2010See Birmingham Hockey Club, supra. Peacock contends that the filed-rate doctrine does not apply to his claims based on this Court’s statement in QCC, Inc. v. Hall, 757 So.2d 1115, 1118 (Ala.2000), that the flled-rate doctrine “holds consumers to a conclusive presumption of knowledge of the contents of the tariff that the utility with which the consumer does business has filed with the appropriate regulatory agency.” Peacock contends that Cincinnati’s rates, approved by the commissioner, do not provide sufficient notice of its practice of requiring insureds to choose UM coverage as to all or no | 1 | 1 |
Florida Municipal Power Agency v. Florida Power & Light Co.green1 sentence2007Power Agency v. Florida Power & Light Co., 64 F.3d 614, 615 (11th Cir.1995). | 1 | 1 |
cluster 752071green2 sentences1998The filed rate doctrine, otherwise known as the “filed tariff doctrine,” “ ‘forbids a regulated entity to charge rates for its services other than those properly filed with the appropriate federal regulatory authority.’ Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. v. Hall, 453 U.S. 571, 577 , 101 S.Ct. 2925 , 69 L.Ed.2d 856 (1981).” Marcus v. AT&T Corp., 138 F.3d 46, 58 (2d Cir.1998). 1998According to the filed rate doctrine, the customer’s knowledge of this rate is “conclusively presumed.” Kansas City S. Ry. v. Carl, 227 U.S. at 653 , 33 S.Ct. at 395 , 57 L.Ed. at 688 ; Marcus v. AT&T Corp., 138 F.3d at 63 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wegoland Ltd. v. Nynex Corp.
green
2 sentences2007Co., 59 F.Supp.2d 1217, 1227 (S.D.Ala.1999) (citing Wegoland Ltd. v. NYNEX Corp., 27 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 1994)). 2000Co., 59 F.Supp.2d 1217, 1227 (S.D.Ala.1999)(citing Wegoland Ltd v. NYNEX Corp., 27 F.3d 17 (2d Cir.1994)). | 2 | 2000–2007 |
cluster 585907
green
2 sentences2007Taffet v. Southern Co., 967 F.2d 1483 (11th Cir.1992).” Peachtree Cas. 2000Taffet v. Southern Co., 967 F.2d 1483 (11th Cir.1992). *373 Peachtree cites Nantahala Power & Light Co. v. Thornburg, 476 U.S. 953 , 106 S.Ct. 2349 , 90 L.Ed.2d 943 (1986), to support its contention that the filed-rate doctrine prohibits the Sharptons' counterclaim. | 2 | 2000–2007 |
Peachtree Cas. Ins. Co., Inc. v. Sharpton
green
2 sentences2013In Peachtree, we determined that a claim challenging an exclusion affecting uninsured motorists is not necessarily barred by the filed-rate doctrine when it contravenes the Act, even if the Department of Insurance approved the exclusion. 768 So.2d at 369 . 2013Moreover, “the Department’s approval of the policy language does not by itself suggest that [the insurer] may issue a policy that violates the restrictions in § 32-7-23.” 768 So.2d at 373 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Talton Telecommunication Corp. v. Coleman
green
1 sentence2002Corp. v. Coleman, 665 So.2d 914 (Ala.1995); Mobile & Gulf R.R. v. Crocker, 455 So.2d 829 (Ala.1984). [11] Because the filed-rate doctrine prohibits collateral challenges to rates properly approved by the insurance commissioner, any such challenge raised in the courts is due to be dismissed. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Ex Parte Blue Cross and Blue Shield
green
1 sentence2002Therefore, because BHC's claim as stated in its complaint is cognizable in the first instance in the circuit court, the claim is barred by neither the doctrine of exclusive jurisdiction nor by the filed-rate doctrine. [11] See id. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Emperor Clock Co., Inc. v. AT&T CORP.
green
1 sentence2002Co., 59 F.Supp.2d 1217 (S.D.Ala.1999)(noting that although the plaintiffs state-law claim was barred by the doctrine of exclusive jurisdiction, by the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, and by the filed-rate doctrine, the outcome of the case may have been different if the plaintiff had claimed that the defendants had applied a rate in excess of that approved by the insurance commissioner); and Emperor Clock Co. v. AT & T Corp., 727 So.2d 41 (Ala.1998)(noting that because the plaintiff did not claim that the defendant had charged a rate in excess of the filed tariff, but instead claimed that the | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Mobile & Gulf R. Co. v. Crocker
green
1 sentence2002Corp. v. Coleman, 665 So.2d 914 (Ala.1995); Mobile & Gulf R.R. v. Crocker, 455 So.2d 829 (Ala.1984). [11] Because the filed-rate doctrine prohibits collateral challenges to rates properly approved by the insurance commissioner, any such challenge raised in the courts is due to be dismissed. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Nantahala Power & Light Co. v. Thornburg
green
2 sentences2000Taffet v. Southern Co., 967 F.2d 1483 (11th Cir.1992). *373 Peachtree cites Nantahala Power & Light Co. v. Thornburg, 476 U.S. 953 , 106 S.Ct. 2349 , 90 L.Ed.2d 943 (1986), to support its contention that the filed-rate doctrine prohibits the Sharptons' counterclaim. 2000Taffet v. Southern Co., 967 F.2d 1483 (11th Cir.1992). *373 Peachtree cites Nantahala Power & Light Co. v. Thornburg, 476 U.S. 953 , 106 S.Ct. 2349 , 90 L.Ed.2d 943 (1986), to support its contention that the filed-rate doctrine prohibits the Sharptons' counterclaim. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Kansas City Southern Railway Co. v. Carl
green
2 sentences1998According to the filed rate doctrine, the customer’s knowledge of this rate is “conclusively presumed.” Kansas City S. Ry. v. Carl, 227 U.S. at 653 , 33 S.Ct. at 395 , 57 L.Ed. at 688 ; Marcus v. AT&T Corp., 138 F.3d at 63 . 1998According to the filed rate doctrine, the customer’s knowledge of this rate is “conclusively presumed.” Kansas City S. Ry. v. Carl, 227 U.S. at 653 , 33 S.Ct. at 395 , 57 L.Ed. at 688 ; Marcus v. AT&T Corp., 138 F.3d at 63 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Mobley v. AT&T Corp.
green
2 sentences1998In Mobley v. ATT Corp. , 717 So.2d 367 (Ala. 1998), this Court affirmed a judgment on the pleadings for the defendant. 1998Central Office, supra; Mobley, supra. Emperor argues that recent changes in the law have effectively repealed the filed-rate doctrine. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. v. Hall
green
2 sentences1998The filed rate doctrine, otherwise known as the “filed tariff doctrine,” “ ‘forbids a regulated entity to charge rates for its services other than those properly filed with the appropriate federal regulatory authority.’ Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. v. Hall, 453 U.S. 571, 577 , 101 S.Ct. 2925 , 69 L.Ed.2d 856 (1981).” Marcus v. AT&T Corp., 138 F.3d 46, 58 (2d Cir.1998). 1998The filed rate doctrine, otherwise known as the “filed tariff doctrine,” “ ‘forbids a regulated entity to charge rates for its services other than those properly filed with the appropriate federal regulatory authority.’ Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. v. Hall, 453 U.S. 571, 577 , 101 S.Ct. 2925 , 69 L.Ed.2d 856 (1981).” Marcus v. AT&T Corp., 138 F.3d 46, 58 (2d Cir.1998). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Northern Alabama Ry. Co. v. Phillips
neutral
2 sentences1998Northern Alabama Ry. v. Phillips, 220 Ala. 541 , 126 So. 846 (1930) (also to the effect that a carrier, or other regulated entity, cannot charge rates other than those in the filed tariff). 1998Northern Alabama Ry. v. Phillips, 220 Ala. 541 , 126 So. 846 (1930) (also to the effect that a carrier, or other regulated entity, cannot charge rates other than those in the filed tariff). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.