Ex Parte Cowabunga, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
2011
Citation profile
11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
states following
September 2017
most recently cited
11 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Kraatz v. Benton Food Mart · 496 So. 2d 91 - Tidwell v. Tidwell · 563 So. 2d 1059 - Dees v. State · Ex Parte Mercury Finance Corp. of Ala. · Ex Parte Alabama Power 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"decided the controversies regarding the compensability of the employee's injury and the right of the employee to medical benefits under the [Workers' Compensation] Act, but it did not file the requisite findings of fact and conclusions of law, stating in its judgment only that the employee had sustained a personal injury due to an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment on May 29, 2009, and ordering the employer to 'approve the medical treatment recommended by the [employee's] authorized treating physician.' This court has repeatedly reversed similar judgments for failing to apprise this court of the basis for the trial court's decision as contemplated by § 25-5-88. See, e.g. , Belcher-Robinson Foundry, LLC v. Narr , 42 So.3d 774 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010) ; and Grace v. Standard Furniture Mfg. Co. , 29 So.3d 918 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009)."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“"This court has jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders entered in workers' compensation cases when the remedy of appeal would be inadequate. See Ex parte Alabama Power Co. , 863 So.2d 1099 , 1102 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003).... [T]he trial court ... required the employer to immediately provide payment of medical benefits on behalf of the employee with the employer's being subject to sanctions for its noncompliance. The employer thereafter obeyed the trial court's order and began paying the employee's medical benefits, and, presumably, it continues to do so. Awaiting review of the order by appeal would only force the employer to incur further expenses that it may not owe and that it may never recover from the employee who, as evidenced by the fact that the employer is now voluntarily paying temporary-total-disability benefits, is currently unable to earn wages. In light of those circumstances, we find that the employer's right to appeal the final judgment that will ultimately be entered in this case, which may not be entered for a year or more, is inadequate. See [ Ex parte ] Amerigas , 855 So.2d [544] at 547-48 [ (Ala. Civ. App. 2003) ] (Murdock, J., concurring in the result) (implying that an appeal would be inadequate in a similar situation)."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“"[T]he plain language of § 25-5-88 requires the making of findings of fact and conclusions of law as to every 'determination' of a controversy regarding the right to benefits under the [Workers' Compensation] Act.... By the plain terms of § 25-5-88, the trial court was required to include a conclusive finding as to every fact responsive to the issues presented to and litigated by the parties as well as a recitation of the law applicable to those facts upon which the trial court relied in reaching its determination. See Fort James Holding Co. v. Morgan , 30 So.3d 458 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009)."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.