noting that a court may consider " 'the plausibility of the existing interpretation of a statute, the extent to which that interpretation has been fixed in the fabric of the law, and the strength of arguments for changing the interpretation’ ” (quoting 20 Am.Jur.2d Courts § 131 (2005))
How later courts described this case
- noting that a court may consider " 'the plausibility of the existing interpretation of a statute, the extent to which that interpretation has been fixed in the fabric of the law, and the strength of arguments for changing the interpretation’ ” (quoting 20 Am.Jur.2d Courts § 131 (2005))
- explaining that wantonness requires an "act done or omitted with knowledge of the probable consequence and with reckless disregard of such consequence"
- confirming that claims of wantonness are subject to the two-year statute of limitations found in Ala. Code § 6-2-38 (l)
- "[Ljitigants whose causes of action accrued on or before June 3, 2011, the date of the original issuance by this Court of its opinion in this case, shall have two years from that date to bring their action, unless and to the extent that the time for filing their action under the six-year limitations period announced in McKenzie [v. Killian, 887 So.2d 861 (Ala.2004)] would expire sooner.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WOODALL, J.,
dissents.
(Note from the reporter of decisions: When this rehearing opinion was released on March 16, 2012, Chief Justice Malone’s recusal was inadvertently omitted from the vote line.)