Norwood v. James River Corp.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

Norwood v. James River Corp.

655 So. 2d 1047, 1995 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 55, 1995 WL 40514

CourtCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama

DecidedFebruary 3, 1995

DocketAV93000578

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 655 So. 2d 1047 (Norwood v. James River Corp.) 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

Norwood v. James River Corp., 655 So. 2d 1047, 1995 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 55, 1995 WL 40514 (Ala. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Robert Norwood sued James River Corporation for workmen's compensation benefits. The trial court entered a judgment for James River, and Norwood appealed. We reverse and remand.

It is clear from the record that we must reverse, based on the trial court's failure to make any findings of fact or conclusions of law in this case, which involved evidence of a technical and, to a degree, complicated nature. Indeed, it is because of cases in which the evidence is technical and complicated, among other reasons, that § 25-5-88, Ala. Code 1975, requires the trial court to make a "determination" which must be "filed in writing with the clerk of [the] court." Section 25-5-88 requires that the judgment entered by a trial court in a workmen's compensation case contain findings of fact and conclusions of law based thereon; otherwise, this court itself cannot determine whether the trial court's judgment should be upheld. Roberts v. Veazey, 637 So.2d 1350 (Ala.Civ.App. 1994) (opinion on remand); Winn-Dixie, Inc. v.Ates, 628 So.2d 791 (Ala.Civ.App. 1993).

The trial court made no such findings or conclusions. The only notation in the record regarding the trial court's decision is a statement entered on the case action summary sheet, to-wit: "Judgment by court for the defendant and against the plaintiff." Accordingly, the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded. Farris v. St. Vincent's Hospital,624 So.2d 183 (Ala.Civ.App. 1993).

The parties have informed this court that the distinguished trial judge who heard this cause has since retired from active service. If practicable, he should be given the opportunity to review the record in this case and to comply with § 25-5-88. If that is not practicable, however, then there must be a new trial.

Let the judgment be reversed and the cause remanded for an order or proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The foregoing opinion was prepared by SAM A. BEATTY, Retired Justice, Supreme Court of Alabama, while serving on active duty status as a judge of this court under the provisions of §12-18-10(e), Ala. Code 1975.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

All the Judges concur.

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

Robert Norwood sued James River Corporation for workmen's compensation benefits. The trial court entered a judgment for James River, and Norwood appealed. We reverse and remand.

It is clear from the record that we must reverse, based on the trial court's failure to make any findings of fact or conclusions of law in this case, which involved evidence of a technical and, to a degree, complicated nature. Indeed, it is because of cases in which the evidence is technical and complicated, among other reasons, that § 25-5-88, Ala. Code 1975, requires the trial court to make a "determination" which must be "filed in writing with the clerk of [the] court." Section 25-5-88 requires that the judgment entered by a trial court in a workmen's compensation case contain findings of fact and conclusions of law based thereon; otherwise, this court itself cannot determine whether the trial court's judgment should be upheld. Roberts v. Veazey, 637 So.2d 1350 (Ala.Civ.App. 1994) (opinion on remand); Winn-Dixie, Inc. v.Ates, 628 So.2d 791 (Ala.Civ.App. 1993).

The trial court made no such findings or conclusions. The only notation in the record regarding the trial court's decision is a statement entered on the case action summary sheet, to-wit: "Judgment by court for the defendant and against the plaintiff." Accordingly, the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded. Farris v. St. Vincent's Hospital,624 So.2d 183 (Ala.Civ.App. 1993).

The parties have informed this court that the distinguished trial judge who heard this cause has since retired from active service. If practicable, he should be given the opportunity to review the record in this case and to comply with § 25-5-88. If that is not practicable, however, then there must be a new trial.

Let the judgment be reversed and the cause remanded for an order or proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The foregoing opinion was prepared by SAM A. BEATTY, Retired Justice, Supreme Court of Alabama, while serving on active duty status as a judge of this court under the provisions of §12-18-10(e), Ala. Code 1975.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

All the Judges concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

655 So. 2d 1047, 1995 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 55, 1995 WL 40514, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norwood-v-james-river-corp-alacivapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack