Matthews v. Bruno's, Inc.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

Matthews v. Bruno's, Inc.

624 So. 2d 640, 1993 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 231, 1993 WL 153948

CourtCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama

DecidedMay 14, 1993

DocketAV92000215

StatusPublished

This text of 624 So. 2d 640 (Matthews v. Bruno's, 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

Matthews v. Bruno's, Inc., 624 So. 2d 640, 1993 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 231, 1993 WL 153948 (Ala. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

ROBERTSON, Presiding Judge.

Following an ore tenus proceeding, the trial court entered a judgment, which, inter alia, found Webster Matthews to have suffered a “permanent loss of earning capacity of 20%” and awarded workmen’s compensation benefits accordingly. No postjudgment motion was filed.

On appeal, Webster contends that the trial court’s judgment was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to the law.

A recitation of the evidence before the trial court would serve no useful purpose in this [641]*641case. After a review of the record with the attendant legal presumptions, we cannot hold that the trial court’s judgment was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to the law, but instead we find that there was legal evidence to support the trial court’s findings and that a reasonable view of that evidence supports the trial court’s judgment. Ex parte Eastwood Foods, Inc., 575 So.2d 91 (Ala.1991). The judgment of the trial court is due to be affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

YATES, J., concurs. THIGPEN, J., concurs in result.

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

ROBERTSON, Presiding Judge.

Following an ore tenus proceeding, the trial court entered a judgment, which, inter alia, found Webster Matthews to have suffered a “permanent loss of earning capacity of 20%” and awarded workmen’s compensation benefits accordingly. No postjudgment motion was filed.

On appeal, Webster contends that the trial court’s judgment was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to the law.

A recitation of the evidence before the trial court would serve no useful purpose in this [641]*641case. After a review of the record with the attendant legal presumptions, we cannot hold that the trial court’s judgment was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to the law, but instead we find that there was legal evidence to support the trial court’s findings and that a reasonable view of that evidence supports the trial court’s judgment. Ex parte Eastwood Foods, Inc., 575 So.2d 91 (Ala.1991). The judgment of the trial court is due to be affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

YATES, J., concurs. THIGPEN, J., concurs in result.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

624 So. 2d 640, 1993 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 231, 1993 WL 153948, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matthews-v-brunos-inc-alacivapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack