James Talcott, Inc. v. Jack Cole Company

3 Citing cases

  1. Ind. Dev. Bd., Tn. of Section v. Fuqua Indus

    523 F.2d 1226 (5th Cir. 1976)   Cited 54 times
    Relying on the liberal pleading standard of the federal rules to construe a complaint to include request for relief on a theory of subrogation, even though the complaint was not clear

    In James Talcott, Inc. v. Jack Cole Co., 5 Cir. 1971, 441 F.2d 325, we dealt with the correctness of a directed verdict on a misrepresentation claim under another Alabama statute. We noted that our decision to reverse and direct a trial verdict was prompted by the Seventh Amendment mandate to preserve the right of trial by jury in suits at common law.

  2. United States v. Hussaini

    No. 19-60387-CR-ALTMAN (S.D. Fla. Jan. 13, 2022)   Cited 7 times

    ; James Talcott, Inc. v. Jack Cole Co., 441 F.2d 325, 329 (5th Cir. 1971) (“We hold, however, that, nonetheless, the question of reasonableness was for the jury.”); Hagerty v. L&L Marine Servs., Inc., 788 F.2d 315, 318 (5th Cir. 1986) (“It is for the jury to decide questions such as the existence, severity and reasonableness of the fear.”)

  3. Farmers Merchants Bank v. Home Ins. Co.

    514 So. 2d 825 (Ala. 1987)   Cited 22 times
    In Farmers Merchants Bank, a bank had purchased directors and officers liability insurance with the same type of provisions at issue in this case.

    We recognize, of course, that, where contrary inferences may be drawn by the factfinder as to the date on which the plaintiff was put on reasonable inquiry of the alleged misrepresentation, this factual issue precludes disposition by summary judgment. See Marks Fitzgerald Furniture Co. v. Clarklift of Alabama, Inc., supra; Elrod v. Ford, 489 So.2d 534 (Ala. 1986); Cartwright v. Braly, 218 Ala. 49, 117 So. 477 (1928); Cumberland Capital Corp. v. Robinette, 57 Ala. App. 697, 331 So.2d 709 (1976); James Talcott, Inc. v. Jack Cole Co., 441 F.2d 325 (5th Cir. 1971). Nonetheless, here, we agree with the trial court.