Burton v. Howard

496 So. 2d 764, 1986 Ala. LEXIS 4065
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedOctober 3, 1986
Docket85-515
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 496 So. 2d 764 (Burton v. Howard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Burton v. Howard, 496 So. 2d 764, 1986 Ala. LEXIS 4065 (Ala. 1986).

Opinion

ALMON, Justice.

This is a subsequent appeal of the action at issue in Howard v. Burton, 470 So.2d 1176 (Ala.1985). After this Court reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the cause, plaintiffs filed an amendment to their complaint. Defendant filed a motion to strike the amendment and to enter judgment in accordance with this Court’s opinion. The trial court granted the motion, noting that “the issue raised in the plaintiffs’ amendment was present in the original complaint,” and entered final judgment.

It is within the sound discretion of the trial court whether to allow an amendment to a complaint after this Court reverses a judgment and remands the case without further directions. Havard v. Palmer & Baker Engineers, Inc., 293 Ala. 301, 306, 302 So.2d 228, 231 (1974). No abuse of that discretion is shown here. The judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

TORBERT, C.J., and MADDOX, BEAT-TY and HOUSTON, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

ALFA Mut. Ins. Co. v. Smith
540 So. 2d 691 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1989)
Ex Parte Ins. Co. of North America
523 So. 2d 1064 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
496 So. 2d 764, 1986 Ala. LEXIS 4065, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burton-v-howard-ala-1986.