AC, INC. v. Baker’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
1 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently May 2021
1 district · 13 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 547 So. 2d 870 - West v. Founders Life Assur. Co. of Florida · 538 So. 2d 794 - Bass v. SOUTHTRUST BANK OF BALDWIN CTY. · Hanners v. Balfour Guthrie, Inc. · 531 So. 2d 860 - Bussey v. John Deere Co. · Cox v. Summa Corp.
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The statute of limitations on a contract action runs from the time a breach occurs rather than from the time actual damage is sustained.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Although this Court has never addressed a continuing contract argument such as the one the plaintiffs in this case touch upon, several courts have recognized a 'continuing contract' doctrine for determining when a breach of contract action on an entire contract accrues for limitations purposes. This doctrine has been applied most often to cases concerning payment for performance of services, to determine when the plaintiff's right to sue for payment occurred. "However, this is not an action seeking compensation for services rendered; rather, [the plaintiffs] seek recovery for harm incurred from allegedly erroneous tax advice. An application of the 'continuing contract' doctrine to this case would toll the running of the limitations period until the last time the plaintiffs acted upon the defendants' advice. Further, although this Court has never applied a 'continuing contract' doctrine, it has recognized, in certain situations, a 'continuing tort' doctrine that operates to toll the running of the limitations period in tort cases until the date that the last injury occurred. However, this Court has expressly limited 'recovery for a continuous tort ... to those damages that occurred within the period of limitations.' [ Continental Cas. Ins. Co. v.] McDonald , 567 So.2d [1208,] 1216 [ (Ala. 1990) ] (citing Garrett [v. Raytheon Co.] , 368 So.2d [516,] 521 [ (Ala. 1979) ] ; see American Mutual Liability Ins. Co. v. Agricola Furnace Co. , 236 Ala. 535 , 183 So. 677 (1938) ; Howell”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"If the agreements in this case constituted several, separate annual agreements under which Johnston and JJW prepared and reviewed the plaintiffs' tax returns from 1981 to 1985, then a breach of contract action accrued on each contract, individually, for purposes of the six-year limitations period, when performance under each contract was complete. Under this interpretation of the parties' contractual relationships, the trial court's judgment would be affirmed, because the statute of limitations would bar all of the plaintiffs' breach of contract claims except the claims based on the 1985 tax returns."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.