Morrow v. Dunlop Tire Corporation

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

Morrow v. Dunlop Tire Corporation

772 So. 2d 1172, 2000 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 409, 2000 WL 868584

CourtCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama

DecidedJune 30, 2000

Docket2971073

StatusPublished

This text of 772 So. 2d 1172 (Morrow v. Dunlop Tire Corporation) 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

Morrow v. Dunlop Tire Corporation, 772 So. 2d 1172, 2000 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 409, 2000 WL 868584 (Ala. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

On Remand from the Supreme Court

CRAWLEY, Judge.

The prior judgment of this court has been affirmed in part and reversed in part and the cause remanded, by the Supreme Court of Alabama. On remand to this court, and in compliance with the Supreme Court’s opinion in Ex parte Dunlop Tire Corp., 772 So.2d 1167 (Ala.2000), that portion of the judgment of the trial court holding that Morrow’s injury was to a scheduled member is affirmed; that portion of the trial court’s judgment holding that Morrow’s second injury was not com-pensable is reversed; and the trial court is instructed to consider “whether [Morrow’s] second injury was a natural consequence of the primary injury.” 772 So.2d at 1171.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED.

ROBERTSON, P.J., and YATES, MONROE, and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

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

On Remand from the Supreme Court

CRAWLEY, Judge.

The prior judgment of this court has been affirmed in part and reversed in part and the cause remanded, by the Supreme Court of Alabama. On remand to this court, and in compliance with the Supreme Court’s opinion in Ex parte Dunlop Tire Corp., 772 So.2d 1167 (Ala.2000), that portion of the judgment of the trial court holding that Morrow’s injury was to a scheduled member is affirmed; that portion of the trial court’s judgment holding that Morrow’s second injury was not com-pensable is reversed; and the trial court is instructed to consider “whether [Morrow’s] second injury was a natural consequence of the primary injury.” 772 So.2d at 1171.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED.

ROBERTSON, P.J., and YATES, MONROE, and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

772 So. 2d 1172, 2000 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 409, 2000 WL 868584, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morrow-v-dunlop-tire-corporation-alacivapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack