First State Bank of Atmore v. Thompson

Supreme Court of Alabama

First State Bank of Atmore v. Thompson

538 So. 2d 29, 1988 Ala. LEXIS 629, 1988 WL 143931

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedDecember 2, 1988

Docket87-529

StatusPublished

This text of 538 So. 2d 29 (First State Bank of Atmore v. Thompson) 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

First State Bank of Atmore v. Thompson, 538 So. 2d 29, 1988 Ala. LEXIS 629, 1988 WL 143931 (Ala. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

TORBERT, Chief Justice.

We hereby quash the writ formerly granted in this case, with comment. The following matter warrants comment but does not alter the disposition by the Court [30]*30of Civil Appeals. We find unnecessary, and should not be taken as agreeing with, that portion of the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals that addresses the obligations, or lack thereof, of the FDIC vis-a-vis First State Bank under the alleged agreement. Petitioner raised no issue on appeal with respect to the FDIC, and, thus, the FDIC’s obligations or duties under this agreement were not a proper subject for review.

As a final matter, we grant petitioner’s motion to strike the reply letter filed with this Court on October 12, 1988, by the respondent, Zack Thompson, because the letter was filed after the 14-day period prescribed for such replies, A.R.A.P. 39(f).

WRIT QUASHED.

JONES, SHORES, ADAMS and STEAGALL, JJ., concur.

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

TORBERT, Chief Justice.

We hereby quash the writ formerly granted in this case, with comment. The following matter warrants comment but does not alter the disposition by the Court [30]*30of Civil Appeals. We find unnecessary, and should not be taken as agreeing with, that portion of the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals that addresses the obligations, or lack thereof, of the FDIC vis-a-vis First State Bank under the alleged agreement. Petitioner raised no issue on appeal with respect to the FDIC, and, thus, the FDIC’s obligations or duties under this agreement were not a proper subject for review.

As a final matter, we grant petitioner’s motion to strike the reply letter filed with this Court on October 12, 1988, by the respondent, Zack Thompson, because the letter was filed after the 14-day period prescribed for such replies, A.R.A.P. 39(f).

WRIT QUASHED.

JONES, SHORES, ADAMS and STEAGALL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

538 So. 2d 29, 1988 Ala. LEXIS 629, 1988 WL 143931, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/first-state-bank-of-atmore-v-thompson-ala-1988.