445 So. 2d 873 - Jones v. Casey’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

cited by 34 later decisions

states following

August 2018

most recently cited

27 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably 551 So. 2d 235 - HealthAmerica v. Menton (1989), Parsons Whittemore Alabama Machinery and Services Corporation v. Yeargin Construction Company Inc Yeargin Construction Company Inc (1984)

27 state decisions

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 De Moville v. Merchants & Farmers Bank · Texas Ry Co v. Anderson · 410 So. 2d 5 - Casey v. Jones · 381 So. 2d 26 - Street v. City of Anniston · Austin v. State

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

“retrospective application of a statute is generally not favored, absent an express statutory provision or clear legislative intent.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Ala. Teachers Credit Union v. Design Build Concepts, Inc. · Granite States Insurance Co. v. Styles
“which impair no contract or vested right, and do not disturb past transactions, but preserve and enforce the right and heal defects in existing laws prescribing remedies.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Ex Parte Burks · 814 So. 2d 258 - Auburn Med. Center, Inc. v. State Health Agency
“"Although this Court has never expressly characterized the statute which controls the interest rate on judgments as either substantive or remedial, the fact that a similar amendment did not apply retroactively to change the effect of a contract for a different rate, De Moville v. Merchants Farmers Bank , 237 Ala. 347 , 186 So. 704 (1939), militates in favor of the view that a change in the interest rate itself impairs a substantial right and thus cannot be characterized as remedial."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
e.g. 698 So. 2d 134 - Williams v. Alabama Power Co.

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.