Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 38 So. 3d 16 - Black v. Comer

38 So. 3d 16 - Black v. Comer’s Empirical Analysis

2009

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
October 2022
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 547 So. 2d 870 - West v. Founders Life Assur. Co. of Florida · 493 So. 2d 1374 - Hammond v. City of Gadsden · Vest v. Gay · Alabama Power Company v. Mosley · 738 So. 2d 824 - Delchamps, Inc. v. Bryant

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““ ‘This Court has long held that “[t]here is no fixed standard for ascertainment of compensatory damages recoverable ... for physical pain and mental suffering” and that “the amount of such [an] award is left to the sound discretion of the jury, subject only to correction by the court for clear abuse or passionate exercise of that discretion.” Alabama Power Co. v. Mosley, 294 Ala. 394, 401 , 318 So.2d 260, 266 (1975). This Court has consistently held that a trial court cannot interfere with a jury verdict merely because it believes the jury gave too little or too much. Williston v. Ard, 611 So.2d 274 (Ala. 1992); Olympia Spa v. Johnson, 547 So.2d 80 (Ala.1989); and Vest v. Gay, 275 Ala. 286 , 154 So.2d 297 (Ala.1963).’ ””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “distinguish[ed] between a claim of a lack of consent to the performance of a medical procedure and a claim of a 'lack of informed consent' "). Unlike the patients in the medical battery cases, Plaintiffs here acknowledge that they consented to the specific conduct by medical providers about which they now complain. Plaintiffs instead assert that their consent was not intelligently given, as a result of the incomplete information offered to them by these medical providers. If such claims sound in "negligence”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “‘“We apply the same standard of review to a ruling on a motion for a [judgment as a matter of law] as the trial court used in initially deciding the motion. This standard is “indistinguishable from the standard by which we review a summary judgment.” Hathcock v. Wood, 815 So.2d 502 , 506 (Ala.2001). We must decide whether there was substantial evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, to warrant a jury determination. City of Birmingham v. Sutherland, 834 So.2d 755 (Ala.2002). In Fleetwood Enters., Inc. v. Hutcheson, 791 So.2d 920, 923 (Ala. 2000), this Court stated that ‘“[s]ub-stantial evidence is evidence of such weight and quality that fair-minded persons in the exercise of impartial judgment can reasonably infer the existence of the fact sought to be proved.’” 791 So.2d at 923 (quoting West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala. 1989)).’ “Alabama Power Co. v. Aldridge, 854 So.2d 554, 560 (Ala.2002).””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.