M.L.G. v. P.S.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

M.L.G. v. P.S.

611 So. 2d 1077, 1992 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 511, 1992 WL 311347

CourtCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama

DecidedOctober 30, 1992

Docket2910391

StatusPublished

This text of 611 So. 2d 1077 (M.L.G. v. P.S.) 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

M.L.G. v. P.S., 611 So. 2d 1077, 1992 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 511, 1992 WL 311347 (Ala. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

ROBERTSON, Presiding Judge.

An interlocutory order was entered by the Juvenile Court of Limestone County on [1078]*1078April 6, 1992, which provided that the father would have supervised visitation with his minor child for one hour on April 15, 1992, and that following the visitation, a hearing would be held to review the issue of visitation. The trial court’s order specifically provided that “[t]his is an interlocutory decree and is not a final decree.” On April 15, 1992, the mother filed her notice of appeal to this court.

It is well settled that to support an appeal, the order appealed from must be a final judgment. Tidwell v. Tidwell, 496 So.2d 91 (Ala.Civ.App.1986). A final judgment is a “terminal decision which demonstrates there has been complete adjudication of all matters in controversy between the litigants.” Tidwell at 92.

Clearly, in this case, the mother is appealing from an interlocutory order and not a final appealable order. Therefore, this appeal must be dismissed.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

THIGPEN and RUSSELL, JJ., concur.

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

ROBERTSON, Presiding Judge.

An interlocutory order was entered by the Juvenile Court of Limestone County on [1078]*1078April 6, 1992, which provided that the father would have supervised visitation with his minor child for one hour on April 15, 1992, and that following the visitation, a hearing would be held to review the issue of visitation. The trial court’s order specifically provided that “[t]his is an interlocutory decree and is not a final decree.” On April 15, 1992, the mother filed her notice of appeal to this court.

It is well settled that to support an appeal, the order appealed from must be a final judgment. Tidwell v. Tidwell, 496 So.2d 91 (Ala.Civ.App.1986). A final judgment is a “terminal decision which demonstrates there has been complete adjudication of all matters in controversy between the litigants.” Tidwell at 92.

Clearly, in this case, the mother is appealing from an interlocutory order and not a final appealable order. Therefore, this appeal must be dismissed.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

THIGPEN and RUSSELL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

611 So. 2d 1077, 1992 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 511, 1992 WL 311347, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mlg-v-ps-alacivapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack