Peelegrine v. Sullivan

741 So. 2d 406, 1999 Ala. LEXIS 240, 1999 WL 701665
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided September 10, 1999·No. 1971882 and 1980276·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff appeals from summary judgments for the defendants in a lawsuit alleging counseling malpractice; alienation of affections; breach of contract; the tort of outrage; vicarious liability; negligent hiring, supervision, and retention; fraud; intentional infliction of emotional distress; breach of fiduciary duty; and loss of consortium. Because our study of the record on appeal discloses no genuine issue of material fact, and because the facts as shown by that record entitle the defendants to judgments as a matter of law, we [407] affirm the summary judgments. Rule 56(c), Ala.R.Civ.P.

AFFIRMED.

HOOPER, C.J., and COOK, SEE, LYONS, BROWN, and JOHNSTONE, JJ., concur. MADDOX and HOUSTON, JJ., concur specially.

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

Peelegrine v. Sullivan, 741 So. 2d 406, 1999 Ala. LEXIS 240, 1999 WL 701665 (Ala. 1999).

741 So. 2d 406 (Peelegrine v. Sullivan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bailey v. Faulkner
940 So. 2d 247 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2006)