Holcomb v. Morris’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 state decisions

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

1. ““An amendment that changes completely the original form of action is unacceptable. Walker v. Eubanks, 424 So.2d 631 (Ala.Civ.App.1982). However, there is no uniformity in the Alabama case law as to when an amendment does work an entire change in the cause of action. Usually the decision as to whether the amendment changes the cause of action depends on the particular facts of each case. Cases addressing this issue state that, “‘... The test is whether the proposed amendment is a different matter, another subject of controversy, or the same matter more fully or differently laid to meet the possible scope ... of the testimony.” ’ Alabama Consolidated Coal & Iron Co. v. Heald, 154 Ala. 580 , 45 So. 686 (1907) (quoting from 1 Ency. PI. & Pr. 564). See also, United States Steel Corp. v. McGehee, 262 Ala. 525 , 80 So.2d 256 (1955); Isbell v. Bray, 256 Ala. 1 , 53 So.2d 577 (1951). As long as the new claim stated in an amendment is asserted for the same purpose as the original complaint, there is no departure. Thus, it has been stated that an amendment does not constitute a new cause of action where the added count seeks to adjudicate property rights between the same parties, the same property, and arises from the same transaction as found in the original complaint, even where such amendment seeks a different or inconsistent relief. Long v. Ladd, 273 Ala. 410 , 142 So.2d 660 (1962); Garrett v. First National Bank, 233 Ala. 467 , 172 So. 611 (1937); Hill v. Almon, 224 Ala. 658 , 141 ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Thagard v. Person

2. ““[ujnlawful detainer concerns only the right of possession of property and usually does not involve any question of title in the land. Mitchell v. Rogers, 370 So.2d 263 (Ala.1979).... Plaintiff, in order to recover in an ejectment action, must prove his legal title to the property. Coffee v. [Keeton ], 248 Ala. 19 , 26 So.2d 80 (1946); Henry v. Brannan, 149 Ala. 323 , 42 So. 995 (1906); Jackson Lumber Co. v. McCreary, 137 Ala. 278 , 34 So. 850 (1903) (ejectment is a favored method of trying titles to land).””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jackson v. Davis

3. ““[T]he trial is had as though the suit originated in the circuit court, and a new complaint or an amendment to the old, may be filed by the plaintiff, provided it does not exhibit an entire change of parties plaintiff or defendant, and does not show a departure from, or change in, the original form of action.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Thagard v. Person