Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 569 SO2D 712 - Wooley v. Shewbart

Wooley v. Shewbart’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
2
states following
January 2005
most recently cited

6 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on American Road Serv. Co. v. Inmon · 547 So. 2d 90 - Lowman v. Piedmont Exec. Shirt Mfg. Co. · 496 So. 2d 768 - Hill v. Kraft, Inc. · 567 So. 2d 1208 - Continental Cas. Ins. Co. v. McDonald · 373 So. 2d 1054 - Vincent v. Blue Cross-Blue Shield of Alabama, Inc.

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

  1. “' American Road Service Co. v. Inmon , 394 So.2d 361 , 368 (Ala. 1980) (quoting Comment d, Restatement (Second) of Torts , § 46 at 73 (1948)). The evidence in this case is entirely unlike that in Continental Casualty Ins. Co. v. McDonald , from which the jury reasonably could have found that CNA had engaged over an extended time in an effort to coerce McDonald to settle his [claim for] workmen's compensation benefits for an unfairly low lump-sum payment.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"The summary judgment was also correct on the outrage count. The tort of outrage encompasses only 'conduct so outrageous in character and so extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized society.' [Citations omitted.] None of the alleged conduct meets this test. CNA was doing 'no more than [insisting] upon [its] legal rights in a permissible way,' Inmon , at 368 (citation omitted), for which it cannot be held liable in an action based on outrage."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “This court has held that a claim for bad faith failure to pay an insurance claim in the context of workmen’s compensation claims is barred by the workmen’s compensation exclusivity provisions, but that a claim based on the tort of outrage is not barred.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.