Ridlespurge v. Kmart Corporation

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

Ridlespurge v. Kmart Corporation

812 So. 2d 1211, 2001 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 501, 2001 WL 996074

CourtCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama

DecidedAugust 31, 2001

Docket2990410

StatusPublished

This text of 812 So. 2d 1211 (Ridlespurge v. Kmart 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

Ridlespurge v. Kmart Corporation, 812 So. 2d 1211, 2001 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 501, 2001 WL 996074 (Ala. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

After Remand from the Supreme Court

PER CURIAM.

The prior judgment of this court has been reversed and the cause remanded by the Supreme Court of Alabama. Ex parte Kmart Corporation, 812 So.2d 1205 (Ala.2001). That portion of the trial court’s judgment that this court affirmed was not reviewed on certiorari. On remand to this court, and in compliance with the Supreme Court’s opinion, the judgment of the trial court is hereby affirmed as it relates to the compensability of Ridlespurge’s fibromyal-gia and insofar as it determined that Ri-dlespurge was “permanently and totally disabled” because of her right-shoulder injury. Thus, the trial court’s judgment of October 20,1999, is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

All the judges concur.

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

After Remand from the Supreme Court

PER CURIAM.

The prior judgment of this court has been reversed and the cause remanded by the Supreme Court of Alabama. Ex parte Kmart Corporation, 812 So.2d 1205 (Ala.2001). That portion of the trial court’s judgment that this court affirmed was not reviewed on certiorari. On remand to this court, and in compliance with the Supreme Court’s opinion, the judgment of the trial court is hereby affirmed as it relates to the compensability of Ridlespurge’s fibromyal-gia and insofar as it determined that Ri-dlespurge was “permanently and totally disabled” because of her right-shoulder injury. Thus, the trial court’s judgment of October 20,1999, is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

All the judges concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

812 So. 2d 1211, 2001 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 501, 2001 WL 996074, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ridlespurge-v-kmart-corporation-alacivapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack