Ex Parte Carlton

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided April 11, 2003

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 2003-04-11

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently September 2017

20 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“"As this Court stated in Hogan [ v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 730 So.2d 1157 (Ala.1998)], `the Legislature, of course, has the prerogative to change the statute so as to avoid the interpretation adopted by this Court in [ State Farm Automobile Insurance Co. v. ] Baldwin, [ 470 So.2d 1230 (Ala. 1985),] [ State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. ] Jeffers, [ 686 So.2d 248 (Ala.1996),] and [ Hogan ].' 730 So.2d at 1159 n. 1. Because the Legislature has chosen not to amend the statute, I am not convinced that this Court's earlier interpretations of the statute were inconsistent with legislative intent. Therefore, I cannot agree that this Court should overrule Baldwin, Jeffers, or Hogan . "”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Kendall v. United Services Automobile Ass'n

Relies on 470 So. 2d 1230 - State Farm Auto. Ins. Co. v. Baldwin · 730 So. 2d 1157 - Hogan v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. · State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Jeffers

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2003-04-11

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1

¶2In my opinion, the Court of Civil Appeals should have affirmed the judgment of the trial court, as clearly required by this Court's decisions in State Farm Automobile Insurance Co. v. Baldwin, 470 So.2d 1230 (Ala. 1985), State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Jeffers,686 So.2d 248 (Ala. 1996), and Hogan v. State Farm Mutual AutomobileInsurance Co., 730 So.2d 1157 (Ala. 1998). Therefore, I respectfully dissent.

¶3As this Court stated in Hogan, "the Legislature, of course, has the prerogative to change the statute so as to avoid the interpretation adopted by this Court in Baldwin, Jeffers, and [Hogan]." 730 So.2d at 1159 n. 1. Because the Legislature has chosen not to amend the statute, I am not convinced that this Court's earlier interpretations of the statute were inconsistent with legislative intent. Therefore, I cannot agree that this Court should overrule Baldwin, Jeffers, or Hogan.

¶4JOHNSTONE, J., concurs.