Shelby County v. Seale

Supreme Court of Alabama

Shelby County v. Seale

540 So. 2d 731, 1989 Ala. LEXIS 65, 1989 WL 24623

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedFebruary 3, 1989

Docket87-1566

StatusPublished

This text of 540 So. 2d 731 (Shelby County v. Seale) 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

Shelby County v. Seale, 540 So. 2d 731, 1989 Ala. LEXIS 65, 1989 WL 24623 (Ala. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Because the primary issue raised on this appeal (whether the defendants are estopped to assert the defense of the statute of limitations) includes questions of fact, and thus cannot be resolved purely on the pleadings, we hold that the trial court’s entry of summary judgment was premature. The judgment, therefore, is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.

In so holding, we note that the equitable relief prayed for, with respect to the plaintiff’s allegation that the defendants have continuously failed to file the requisite subdivision plat, in violation of the county planning commission’s regulations, is not subject to the statute of limitations. As to all other issues, the trial court, upon remand, is free to make the initial determination under the facts as disclosed by the evidence.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

JONES, SHORES, ADAMS, HOUSTON and KENNEDY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Because the primary issue raised on this appeal (whether the defendants are estopped to assert the defense of the statute of limitations) includes questions of fact, and thus cannot be resolved purely on the pleadings, we hold that the trial court’s entry of summary judgment was premature. The judgment, therefore, is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.

In so holding, we note that the equitable relief prayed for, with respect to the plaintiff’s allegation that the defendants have continuously failed to file the requisite subdivision plat, in violation of the county planning commission’s regulations, is not subject to the statute of limitations. As to all other issues, the trial court, upon remand, is free to make the initial determination under the facts as disclosed by the evidence.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

JONES, SHORES, ADAMS, HOUSTON and KENNEDY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

540 So. 2d 731, 1989 Ala. LEXIS 65, 1989 WL 24623, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shelby-county-v-seale-ala-1989.