Legal Opinion · Concurrence

ASTRAZENECA LP v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided October 16, 2009No. 1071439, 1071440, 1071704, and 1071759Published

1ConcurrenceCobb, Chief Justice

To the extent that the main opinion relies on Hunt Petroleum Corp. v. State, 901 So.2d 1 (Ala.2004), I cannot concur in its rationale, because I believe that Hunt unduly restricts the jury’s consideration of reliance issues in fraud cases. The application of Hunt to the facts of this case is as wrong in this case as it was in Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Alabama Department of Natural Resources, 986 So.2d 1093 (Ala. 2007), in which I dissented. I discussed my concerns in this respect at length in my dissent in Exxon. However, unlike the situation in Exxon, I believe that'the facts of this case fail to…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Hunt Petroleum Corp. v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 2004
  2. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. ALA. DEPT. OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCESSupreme Court of Alabama · 2007
  3. At & T INF. SYS., INC. v. Cobb Pontiac-Cadillac, Inc.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1989
  4. Ex Parte Alabama Farmers Co-Op., Inc.Supreme Court of Alabama · 2005
  5. Alfa Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. ThomasSupreme Court of Alabama · 1999

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

Powered by the Exa API