Hamm v. Hudson Industries, Inc.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

Hamm v. Hudson Industries, Inc.

507 So. 2d 939, 1987 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 1273

CourtCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama

DecidedApril 29, 1987

DocketCiv. 5335

StatusPublished

This text of 507 So. 2d 939 (Hamm v. Hudson Industries, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hamm v. Hudson Industries, Inc., 507 So. 2d 939, 1987 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 1273 (Ala. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

WRIGHT, Retired Appellate Judge.

In accord with the judgment of the supreme court, 507 So.2d 936, entered on March 27, 1987, wherein the judgment of this court affirming the judgment of the Circuit Court of Pike County was reversed and set aside with direction: It is considered that the judgment of the Circuit Court of Pike County denying the claimant’s motion for a new trial be reversed. The cause is remanded to said circuit court for reconsideration of the motion for a new trial as directed by the opinion and judgment of the supreme court.

The foregoing opinion was prepared by Retired Appellate Judge L. CHARLES WRIGHT while serving on active duty status as a judge of this court under the provisions of section 12-18-10(e), Code 1975, and this opinion is hereby adopted as that of the court.

REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

All the Judges concur.

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

WRIGHT, Retired Appellate Judge.

In accord with the judgment of the supreme court, 507 So.2d 936, entered on March 27, 1987, wherein the judgment of this court affirming the judgment of the Circuit Court of Pike County was reversed and set aside with direction: It is considered that the judgment of the Circuit Court of Pike County denying the claimant’s motion for a new trial be reversed. The cause is remanded to said circuit court for reconsideration of the motion for a new trial as directed by the opinion and judgment of the supreme court.

The foregoing opinion was prepared by Retired Appellate Judge L. CHARLES WRIGHT while serving on active duty status as a judge of this court under the provisions of section 12-18-10(e), Code 1975, and this opinion is hereby adopted as that of the court.

REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

All the Judges concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

507 So. 2d 939, 1987 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 1273, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamm-v-hudson-industries-inc-alacivapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack