5 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2005 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 |
|---|---|---|
City of Tuscaloosa v. Howardgreen2 sentences1996This test meets the employment versus non-employment exertion test of Larson stated in 65 Mich.L.Rev. 441." 55 Ala. App. at 705 -06 , 318 So.2d at 732 (emphasis added). 1984However, the medical test of causation must also be met — that is that such exposure, though operating with or upon other exposure common to all was in fact the contributing cause of the injury.” Id. at 705-706 , 318 So.2d at 732 . | 1 | 2 |
Lynn Strickland Sales & Serv., Inc. v. AERO-LANE FAB., INC.green1 sentence2005“Simple negligence is the inadvertent omission of duty; and wanton or willful misconduct is characterized as such by the state of mind with which the act or omission is done or omitted.” ’ ” (Quoting Lynn Strickland Sales & Serv., Inc. v. Aero-Lane Fabricators, Inc., 510 So.2d 142, 145 (Ala.1987).) It was Ferguson’s burden to prove that Baptist breached an applicable medical standard of care as to each asserted instance of wantonness. § 6-5-548(a), Ala. Code 1975. | 1 | 1 |
Bell v. Hartgreen1 sentence1993See Bell v. Hart, supra; Police & Fireman's 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 |
|---|---|---|
Medlin v. Crosby
green
2 sentences1997In Medlin v. Crosby , 583 So.2d 1290 (Ala. 1991), this Court established a framework under § 6-5-548 for determining whether an expert witness is qualified to testify in a medical malpractice case. 1997In Medlin v. Crosby, 583 So.2d 1290 (Ala.1991), this Court established a framework under § 6-5-548 for determining whether an expert witness is qualified to testify in a medical malpractice case. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Levesque v. Regional Medical Center Bd.
green
1 sentence1993While expert testimony of a physician is required in a medical malpractice case in order to determine the proper medical standard of care, Levesque v. Regional Medical Center Board, 612 So.2d 445 (Ala.1993), the testimony of a medical doctor is not required in order to prove causation relating to the effects of drugs or toxins. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.