Legal Opinion

Peacock v. Cincinnati Insurance Co.

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided June 11, 2010No. 1081699PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

LYONS, Justice.

The Cincinnati Insurance Company (“Cincinnati”), the defendant in a putative class action filed by Ray Peacock, has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus requesting that this Court direct the trial court to dismiss Peacock’s claims against Cincinnati because, Cincinnati argues, the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and Peacock failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. We grant the petition and issue the writ.

Factual Background and Procedural History

The Motor Vehicle Safety-Responsibility Act, § 32-7-1 et seq., Ala.Code 1975, provides that motor-vehicle…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Ex Parte Integon Corp.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1995
  2. Patterson v. Gladwin Corp.Supreme Court of Alabama · 2002
  3. Ex Parte Perfection Siding, Inc.Supreme Court of Alabama · 2003
  4. League of Women Voters v. RenfroSupreme Court of Alabama · 1974
  5. City of Bessemer v. McClainSupreme Court of Alabama · 2006

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Tinney v. East Alabama Medical CenterSupreme Court of Alabama · 2012
  2. Ex parte Edgetech I.G., Inc. n/k/a Quanex I.G. Systems, Inc.Supreme Court of Alabama · 2014
  3. Northwest Alabama Treatment Center, Inc. v. Alabama Department of Mental HealthCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 2016
  4. Speer v. Quality Carriers, Inc.Supreme Court of Alabama · 2015
  5. Ex parte Interstate Freight USA, Inc.Supreme Court of Alabama · 2016

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API