Holland v. Strickland
596 So. 2d 902, 1992 Ala. LEXIS 398, 1992 WL 58741
Opinion
After a thorough review of the record, the exhibits, and the briefs filed in this case, we are unable to conclude that the trial judge erred in directing a verdict for the defendants. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court based on that verdict is affirmed. See Bailey v. Avera, 560 So.2d 1038 (Ala.1990); Watson v. McGee, 348 So.2d 461 (Ala.1977); Chicago, Mobile Development Co. v. G. C. Coggin Co., 259 Ala. 152, 66 So.2d 151 (1953); Watkins v. Roden Coal Co., 205 Ala. 367, 87 So. 565 (1921).
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Holland v. Strickland, 596 So. 2d 902, 1992 Ala. LEXIS 398, 1992 WL 58741 (Ala. 1992).
596 So. 2d 902 (Holland v. Strickland) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Chicago, Mobile Development Co. v. G. C. Coggin Co.
66 So. 2d 151 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1953)
Bailey v. Avera
560 So. 2d 1038 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1990)
Watson v. McGee
348 So. 2d 461 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1977)
Watkins v. Roden Coal Co.
87 So. 565 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1921)