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.
6 Alabama opinions name it 1 courts 1991–2007 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 |
|---|---|---|
Millar v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.green2 sentences2007Co. , 167 Ariz. 93 , 97 , 804 P.2d 822 , 826-27 (Ct.App. 1990), review denied , 168 Ariz. 144 , 811 P.2d 1081 (Ariz. 1991) ('If . . . all that was required to defeat the operation of a policy exclusion under the reasonable expectation doctrine was a provision attempting to qualify or limit the scope of policy coverage, then every policy exclusion *Page 715 would be invalid as contrary to the insured's reasonable expectation of coverage.'). 2007Co. , 167 Ariz. 93 , 97 , 804 P.2d 822 , 826-27 (Ct.App. 1990), review denied , 168 Ariz. 144 , 811 P.2d 1081 (Ariz. 1991) ('If . . . all that was required to defeat the operation of a policy exclusion under the reasonable expectation doctrine was a provision attempting to qualify or limit the scope of policy coverage, then every policy exclusion *Page 715 would be invalid as contrary to the insured's reasonable expectation of coverage.'). | 1 | 3 |
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Sladegreen1 sentence2005State Farm , 747 So.2d at 312 (noting that other jurisdictions limit the reasonable-expectation doctrine to ambiguous insurance policy provisions and stating that such a limitation is necessary to curtail the potential of the court's substituting its own equitable terms for unambiguous terms in an insurance contract). | 1 | 1 |
Casrell v. Altec Industries, Inc.green1 sentence1991See Casrell v. Altec Industries, Inc. , 335 So.2d 128 (Ala. 1976). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Millar v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.
neutral
2 sentences2007Co. , 167 Ariz. 93 , 97 , 804 P.2d 822 , 826-27 (Ct.App. 1990), review denied , 168 Ariz. 144 , 811 P.2d 1081 (Ariz. 1991) ('If . . . all that was required to defeat the operation of a policy exclusion under the reasonable expectation doctrine was a provision attempting to qualify or limit the scope of policy coverage, then every policy exclusion *Page 715 would be invalid as contrary to the insured's reasonable expectation of coverage.'). 2007Co. , 167 Ariz. 93 , 97 , 804 P.2d 822 , 826-27 (Ct.App. 1990), review denied , 168 Ariz. 144 , 811 P.2d 1081 (Ariz. 1991) ('If . . . all that was required to defeat the operation of a policy exclusion under the reasonable expectation doctrine was a provision attempting to qualify or limit the scope of policy coverage, then every policy exclusion *Page 715 would be invalid as contrary to the insured's reasonable expectation of coverage.'). | 3 | 1999–2007 |
Hines v. Riverside Chevrolet-Olds, Inc.
green
2 sentences1995The duty imposed by our tort law is not to sell a product as a "new" product "when it has been previously sold or has been so damaged or altered that a reasonable person would not consider it a 'new' product, in accordance with reasonable expectations." Hines , supra, 655 So.2d at 923 . 1995The duty imposed by our tort law is not to sell a product as a "new" product "when it has been previously sold or has been so damaged or altered that a reasonable person would not consider it a 'new' product, in accordance with reasonable expectations." Hines , supra, 655 So.2d at 923 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Ex Parte Morrison's Cafeteria of Montgomery, Inc.
green
1 sentence1991This Court, in Morrison's , found that the adoption of the reasonable expectation test was compatible with both the AEMLD and the implied warranty of merchantability, because "[t]he terms 'defect,' 'unreasonably dangerous,' and 'merchantable' all focus on the expectations of the ordinary consumer, possessed of the ordinary knowledge common to the community." 431 So.2d at 978 . | 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.