485 So. 2d 1098 - Ex Parte Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"[Rule 21, Ala. R.App. P.,] does not mention the verification requirement contained in § 6-6-640, but, in all other respects, appears to restate and expand upon all the requirements set out in § 6-6-640, thus eliminating any effect that statute may have had as to mandamus petitions filed in appellate courts. However, respondents point out that § 6-6-640 is not listed among the statutes and rules superseded or statutes modified by the Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure. Nevertheless, we find that the caveat contained in the Committee Comments appearing before the lists of statutes and rules superseded or modified by the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure is equally applicable to the lists prepared by the Rules Committee for the Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure, although the latter lists are not preceded by a Committee Comment. That comment preceding the civil rules states in part: "`When the Federal Rules went into effect, no list of superseded or modified statutes was made available. Prof. Moore reports as follows: "`"While a list of such statutes would have been convenient and helpful to the bar, the compilation of such a list would have been a most arduous task, and attended by the constant danger of overlooking some statutes, as there was a multitude of procedural provisions scattered throughout the United States Code, and imbedded in long statutes, often in the most unexpected places. Moreover, it is not always easy, in the absence of a case raising the precise point,”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 84 So. 3d 48 - Collins v. Alabama Department of Corrections · 999 So. 2d 462 - Horton Homes, Inc. v. Shaner

2. “"The Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure permit very broad discovery and the rules must be broadly and liberally construed. Cole v. Cole Tomato Sales, Inc. , 293 Ala. 731 , 310 So.2d 210 (1975). However, ARCP 26(c) recognizes that the right of discovery is not unlimited, and gives the court broad power to control the use of the process and to prevent its abuse by any party. The rule does not allow an arbitrary limit on discovery, but instead vests the trial court with discretion in the discovery process."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 530 So. 2d 785 - Ex Parte Morris · 507 So. 2d 492 - Ex Parte McMahan

3. “"For this reason, mandamus will issue to compel discovery only in those cases where a clear abuse of discretion is shown. Ex parte Alabama Power Co., 280 Ala. 586 , 196 So.2d 702 (1967). "... "It is the trial court's job to exercise its broad discretion in a manner that will implement this philosophy of full disclosure of relevant information and at the same time afford a party, or others, maximum protection against harmful side effects which would result from unnecessary disclosure. [ Marshall v. Guerdon Industries, Inc., ] 373 So.2d 322 (Ala. 1979). "... `Relevancy,' as used in our discovery rules, means relevant to the subject matter of the action and a reasonable possibility that the information sought will lead to other evidence that will be admissible. Drewes v. Bank of Wadley, 350 So.2d 402 (Ala.1977); 8 Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2008 (1970)." (Emphasis added.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 530 So. 2d 785 - Ex Parte Morris