Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 413 SO2D 1129 - Ott v. Smith

Ott v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
2
states following
May 2003
most recently cited

9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently May 2003

9 state decisions

40198219902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Roan v. Smith · 362 So. 2d 836 - Ott v. Fox · 193 Cal. App. 2d 147 - Theobald v. Byers · Goodman v. Walker · 383 So. 2d 158 - Valley Min. Corp., Inc. v. Metro Bank

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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"Irrespective of who owned the [property], however, the law in Alabama is clear that to support an action for conversion, there must be a concurrence of the right of property, be it general or special, and possession or an immediate right of possession. Stathem v. Ferrell , 267 Ala. 333 , 101 So.2d 546 (1958). See also , [Ala.] Code 1975, § 6-5-261 (giving a right of action for conversion to a person with mere possession). Therefore, outright ownership is not essential to support an action for conversion. According to the testimony given, both in [Ott v. Fox, 362 So.2d 836 , 839 (Ala. 1978),] and by the expert witnesses in this action, we believe that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find that [the plaintiff-debtor] did have standing to sue for the conversion of the [property], and that no estoppel would work here against the defendants."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “"It is a well settled rule that a party who fails to object to alleged errors at the trial level may not raise these alleged errors for the first time as the basis for an appeal. Holt v. Davidson , 388 So.2d 548 (Ala. 1980); Record Data International, Inc. v. Nichols , 381 So.2d 1 (Ala. 1979)."”
    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.