Patton v. Black’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably 792 So. 2d 392 - Ex Parte Cranman (2000), 978 So. 2d 17 - Good Hope Contracting Co. v. Alabama Department of Transportation (2007)
24 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 413 So. 2d 391 - DeStafney v. University of Alabama · 371 So. 2d 899 - Winn-Dixie Montgomery, Inc. v. Henderson · 398 So. 2d 258 - First Nat. Bank v. Gilbert Imported Hardwoods, Inc. · 420 So. 2d 57 - Karagan v. City of Mobile · 359 So. 2d 1146 - Childs v. MISSISSIPPI VAL. TITLE INS. CO.
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'[I]t is the rare case involving the defense of [State-agent] immunity that would be properly disposed of by a dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), [Ala. R. Civ. P.].'”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage“'Where a [Rule] 12(b)(6) motion has been granted and this Court is called upon to review the dismissal of the complaint, we must examine the allegations contained therein and construe them so as to resolve all doubts concerning the sufficiency of the complaint in favor of the plaintiff. First National Bank v. Gilbert Imported Hardwoods, Inc. , 398 So.2d 258 (Ala. 1981). In so doing, this Court does not consider whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail, only whether he has stated a claim under which he may possibly prevail. Karagan v. City of Mobile , 420 So.2d 57 (Ala. 1982).'”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“"`[i]t is not for this court to determine, based on the complaint, whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail, but only if he may possibly prevail.' . . . It is conceivable that [the plaintiffs] could prove facts that would show that [the defendants] failed to discharge duties pursuant to a checklist or acted willfully, maliciously, fraudulently, in bad faith, beyond his authority, or under a mistaken interpretation of the law."”
3 later decisions 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.