521 So. 2d 963 - Reeves v. Porter’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

48 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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"(f) When Evidentiary Matter is Unavailable. If a party opposing the motion shows by affidavit that he or she cannot, for reasons stated in the affidavit, present facts essential to justify a statement in opposition, the court may deny the motion for summary judgment or may order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or depositions to be taken or discovery to be had or may make such other order as is just."”

   17 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Parr v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. · Stallworth v. AmSouth Bank of Alabama

2. “"The mere pendency of discovery does not bar summary judgment. If the trial court from the evidence before it, or the appellate court from the record, can ascertain that the matter subject to production *Page 195 was crucial to the non-moving party's case ( Parrish v. Board of Commissioners of Alabama State Bar , 533 F.2d 942 (5th Cir. 1976)) or that the answers to the interrogatories were crucial to the non-moving party's case ( Noble v. McManus , 504 So.2d 248 (Ala. 1987)), then it is error for the trial court to grant summary judgment before the items have been produced or the answers given. However, the burden of showing that these items are crucial is upon the non-moving party. He can do so by complying with Rule 56(f), Ala.R.Civ.P., Water View Developments, Inc. v. Eureka, Inc. , 512 So.2d 916 (Ala. 1987). Rule 56(f) provides: 'Should it appear from the affidavits of a party opposing the motion that he cannot for reasons stated present by affidavit facts essential to justify his opposition, the court may refuse the application for judgment or may order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or depositions to be taken or discovery to be had or may make such other order as is just.' A pending motion to compel production ( Parrish , supra) and a motion to compel answers to interrogatories, which has been granted ( Noble , supra) when the evidence before the court clearly shows that the evidence sought is crucial to the non-moving party's case, have been held suf”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Copeland v. Samford University · 553 So. 2d 68 - Government Street Lumber Co. v. AmSouth Bank, NA

3. “"A representation in an arm's length transaction that causes a person to do nothing more than he was legally obligated to do without such a representation being made, is not material and therefore cannot constitute actionable fraud. [Citations omitted.] In 37 Am. Jur.2d Fraud and Deceit, § 295, at 392-93 (1968), the following appears: "`It is said to be immaterial that one is induced by false representations to do what he is bound to do. A person who has been induced to do that which the law would have otherwise required him to do cannot claim to have been defrauded. In other words, one suffers no damage where he is fraudulently induced to do something which he is under legal obligation to do, such as ... execute a deed which he has contracted to execute ... or perform a valid contract.'"”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 592 So. 2d 1016 - Pickard v. Turner