889 So. 2d 534 - Douglas v. King’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
March 2010
most recently cited
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 602 So. 2d 344 - IMED Corp. v. Systems Engineering Assoc. · Hildebrand v. Kinney · Murphy v. Freeman · Burnett v. Garrison · Simcala, Inc. v. American Coal Trade, Inc.
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"`"`The fundamental rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the legislature in enacting the statute. 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.'"' " Ex parte Alabama Dep't of Mental Health Mental Retardation , 840 So.2d 863 , 867 (Ala. 2002) (quoting Ex parte Master Boat Builders, Inc. , 779 So.2d 192 , 196 (Ala. 2000), quoting in turn IMED Corp. v. Systems Eng'g Assocs. Corp. , 602 So.2d 344 , 346 (Ala. 1992))."”
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.