Holland v. Strickland
This text of 596 So. 2d 902 (Holland v. Strickland) 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.
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
596 So. 2d 902, 1992 Ala. LEXIS 398, 1992 WL 58741, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holland-v-strickland-ala-1992.