Samuel Arthur Thompson v. State of Alabama (Appeal from Mobile Circuit Court: CC-98-72.60 and CC-98-73.60)

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that a court should consider the plain meaning of the words used
• noting that the plaintiff was attending physical therapy months after sustaining an impairment which affected his ability to lead a normal life
• stating that an impairment that is “observable by others” meets “the standard for showing an ‘objectively manifested impairment’ ”
• noting that a directed verdict was proper, inter alia, because there was no dispute regarding residual injuries
• stating that the Court of Appeals’ dictionary-based interpretation of statutory terms improperly “gave the statute a labored interpretation inconsistent with common meanings and common sense”
• indicating that “the serious impairment threshold was not met by pain and suffering alone,” but also required a physical basis for subjective complaints

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).