Sokoll v. Humphrey, Lutz & Smith

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

Sokoll v. Humphrey, Lutz & Smith

380 So. 2d 847, 1980 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 963

CourtCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama

DecidedFebruary 6, 1980

DocketCiv. 1607-X

StatusPublished

This text of 380 So. 2d 847 (Sokoll v. Humphrey, Lutz & Smith) 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

Sokoll v. Humphrey, Lutz & Smith, 380 So. 2d 847, 1980 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 963 (Ala. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

BRADLEY, Judge.

The prior opinion of this court has been affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded by the Supreme Court of Alabama, 380 So.2d 845. On remand to this court, and in compliance with the supreme court’s opinion of January 11, 1980, this cause is now affirmed insofar as finding that the attorney was not liable for statutory penalties and insofar as the attorney is entitled to reasonable and necessary expenses of litigation. Further, this cause is reversed and remanded for entry of a judgment not inconsistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court of Alabama insofar as finding the attorney was liable for interest.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

WRIGHT, P. J., and HOLMES, J., concur.

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

BRADLEY, Judge.

The prior opinion of this court has been affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded by the Supreme Court of Alabama, 380 So.2d 845. On remand to this court, and in compliance with the supreme court’s opinion of January 11, 1980, this cause is now affirmed insofar as finding that the attorney was not liable for statutory penalties and insofar as the attorney is entitled to reasonable and necessary expenses of litigation. Further, this cause is reversed and remanded for entry of a judgment not inconsistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court of Alabama insofar as finding the attorney was liable for interest.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

WRIGHT, P. J., and HOLMES, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

380 So. 2d 847, 1980 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 963, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sokoll-v-humphrey-lutz-smith-alacivapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack