Cudd v. City of Homewood

224 So. 2d 625, 284 Ala. 729, 1969 Ala. LEXIS 1183
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Cudd v. City of Homewood. Read the opinion of the Court — 284 Ala. 268
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided February 6, 1969·No. 6 Div. 627·Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION ON MOTION UNDER RULE 17.

BLOODWORTH, Justice.

Appellees have filed Motion, under Rule 17, Revised Rules of the Supreme Court of Alabama, 279 Ala. XXI, XLIV, seeking this court’s ruling for an automatic affirmance in this case because the appeal “is made solely for delay.”

While undoubtedly there is a field of operation for Rule 17, we are not convinced from the record this is such a case.

The case should he set for oral hearing at the next call of the 6th Division, either the week of April 21 or the week of April 28, 1969.

Appellees’ Motion to advance the hearing on oral argument under Rule 31 is inapposite and is denied.

So ordered.

: LIVINGSTON, C. J., and SIMPSON and COLEM1AN, JJ., concur.

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

Cudd v. City of Homewood, 224 So. 2d 625, 284 Ala. 729, 1969 Ala. LEXIS 1183 (Ala. 1969).

224 So. 2d 625 (Cudd v. City of Homewood) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.