746 So. 2d 960 - Ex Parte Pfizer, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
52 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 602 So. 2d 344 - IMED Corp. v. Systems Engineering Assoc. · 586 So. 2d 889 - Ex Parte Alfab, Inc. · 714 So. 2d 293 - Blue Cross and Blue Shield v. Nielsen · 729 So. 2d 270 - DeKalb County LP Gas Co., Inc. v. Suburban Gas, Inc. · 589 So. 2d 687 - Tuscaloosa County Com'n v. Deputy Sheriffs
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`Words used in a statute must be given their natural, plain, ordinary, and commonly understood meaning, and where plain language is used a court is bound to interpret that language to mean exactly what it says. If the language of the statute is unambiguous, then there is no room for judicial construction and the clearly expressed intent of the legislature must be given effect.'”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) a clear legal right in the petitioner to the order sought; (2) an imperative duty upon the respondent to perform, accompanied by a refusal to do so; (3) the lack of another adequate remedy; and (4) properly invoked jurisdiction of the court.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage“" In any action for injury, damages, or wrongful death, whether in contract or in tort, against a health care provider for breach of the standard of care . . . resulting from acts or omissions in providing health care, . . . the Alabama Medical Liability Act shall govern the parameters of discovery and all aspects of the action . The plaintiff shall include in the complaint filed in the action a detailed specification and factual description of each act and omission alleged by plaintiff to render the health care provider liable to plaintiff and shall include when feasible and ascertainable the date, time, and place of the act or acts. The plaintiff shall amend his complaint timely upon ascertainment of new or different acts or omissions upon which his claim is based; provided, however, that any such amendment must be made at least 90 days before trial. Any complaint which fails to include such detailed specification and factual description of each act and omission shall be subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Any party shall be prohibited from conducting discovery with regard to any other act or omission or from introducing at trial evidence of any other act or omission ."”
2 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.