Montgomery Beverage Company, Inc. v. Norris

Supreme Court of Alabama

Montgomery Beverage Company, Inc. v. Norris

890 So. 2d 1017, 2004 Ala. LEXIS 78, 2004 WL 692146

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedApril 2, 2004

Docket1020815

StatusPublished

This text of 890 So. 2d 1017 (Montgomery Beverage Company, Inc. v. Norris) 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.

Bluebook

Montgomery Beverage Company, Inc. v. Norris, 890 So. 2d 1017, 2004 Ala. LEXIS 78, 2004 WL 692146 (Ala. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Montgomery Beverage Company, Inc., d/b/a Mobile Beer and Wine Company, petitioned this Court, pursuant to Rule 5, Ala. R.App. P., for permission to appeal from the denial of its motion for a partial summary judgment. This Court granted permission to appeal.

In light of this Court’s opinion in Byrd v. Dillard’s, Inc., [Ms. 1021439, April 2, 2004] — So.2d-(Ala.2004), the trial court’s order denying the motion for a partial summary judgment in this case no longer “involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion.” Rule 5(a), Ala. R.App. P. Thus, we dismiss the appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

HOUSTON, SEE, LYONS, BROWN, JOHNSTONE, HARWOOD, WOODALL, and STUART, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Montgomery Beverage Company, Inc., d/b/a Mobile Beer and Wine Company, petitioned this Court, pursuant to Rule 5, Ala. R.App. P., for permission to appeal from the denial of its motion for a partial summary judgment. This Court granted permission to appeal.

In light of this Court’s opinion in Byrd v. Dillard’s, Inc., [Ms. 1021439, April 2, 2004] — So.2d-(Ala.2004), the trial court’s order denying the motion for a partial summary judgment in this case no longer “involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion.” Rule 5(a), Ala. R.App. P. Thus, we dismiss the appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

HOUSTON, SEE, LYONS, BROWN, JOHNSTONE, HARWOOD, WOODALL, and STUART, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

890 So. 2d 1017, 2004 Ala. LEXIS 78, 2004 WL 692146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/montgomery-beverage-company-inc-v-norris-ala-2004.