Streeter v. Young

Supreme Court of Alabama

Streeter v. Young

583 So. 2d 1339, 1991 WL 166277

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJuly 26, 1991

Docket1901300

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 583 So. 2d 1339 (Streeter v. Young) 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

Streeter v. Young, 583 So. 2d 1339, 1991 WL 166277 (Ala. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

This is an appeal from a summary judgment entered in favor of the defendant, Gary C. Young, in a civil action brought by Samuel C. Streeter, who contends that Young was guilty of legal malpractice in his representation of Streeter in Streeter's criminal case. We affirm.

Rule 56, A.R.Civ.P., sets forth a two-tiered standard for determining whether to enter summary judgment. To enter a summary judgment, the trial court must determine: 1) that there is no genuine issue of material fact; and 2) that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56;RNH, Inc. v. Beatty, 571 So.2d 1039 (Ala. 1990). In determining if summary judgment is proper, the trial court must view the motion in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, and, in reviewing a summary judgment, this Court is limited to reviewing the factors and evidence considered by the trial court when it granted the motion. Turner v. Systems Fuel, Inc.,475 So.2d 539 (Ala. 1985).

Rule 56 is to be read in conjunction with the "substantial evidence rule" for actions filed after June 11, 1987. See §12-21-12, Alabama Code 1975; Bass v. *Page 1340 SouthTrust Bank of Baldwin County, 538 So.2d 794, 797-98 (Ala. 1989). Therefore, in order to defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment, Streeter must present "substantial evidence," i.e., "evidence of such weight and quality that fairminded persons in the exercise of impartial judgment can reasonably infer the existence of the fact sought to be proved." West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida,547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala. 1989).

Streeter has not presented substantial evidence of malpractice on the part of Young in defending Streeter.

This case is indistinguishable from Hines v. Davidson,489 So.2d 572 (Ala. 1986). In Hines, we noted that a legal malpractice complaint filed by a criminal defendant against trial counsel "will not support a claim for relief in the absence of an averment that the conviction of the defendant was proximately caused by the alleged negligence of the lawyer and that, but for that negligence, he would have been acquitted."Hines, 489 So.2d at 573, citing Herston v. Whitesell,374 So.2d 267 (Ala. 1979). Streeter failed to offer substantial evidence that his conviction was the proximate result of Young's alleged negligence, and that, but for Young's negligence, he would have been acquitted.

On the basis of Hines, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

HORNSBY, C.J., and MADDOX, HOUSTON and KENNEDY, JJ., concur.

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

This is an appeal from a summary judgment entered in favor of the defendant, Gary C. Young, in a civil action brought by Samuel C. Streeter, who contends that Young was guilty of legal malpractice in his representation of Streeter in Streeter's criminal case. We affirm.

Rule 56, A.R.Civ.P., sets forth a two-tiered standard for determining whether to enter summary judgment. To enter a summary judgment, the trial court must determine: 1) that there is no genuine issue of material fact; and 2) that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56;RNH, Inc. v. Beatty, 571 So.2d 1039 (Ala. 1990). In determining if summary judgment is proper, the trial court must view the motion in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, and, in reviewing a summary judgment, this Court is limited to reviewing the factors and evidence considered by the trial court when it granted the motion. Turner v. Systems Fuel, Inc.,475 So.2d 539 (Ala. 1985).

Rule 56 is to be read in conjunction with the "substantial evidence rule" for actions filed after June 11, 1987. See §12-21-12, Alabama Code 1975; Bass v. *Page 1340 SouthTrust Bank of Baldwin County, 538 So.2d 794, 797-98 (Ala. 1989). Therefore, in order to defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment, Streeter must present "substantial evidence," i.e., "evidence of such weight and quality that fairminded persons in the exercise of impartial judgment can reasonably infer the existence of the fact sought to be proved." West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida,547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala. 1989).

Streeter has not presented substantial evidence of malpractice on the part of Young in defending Streeter.

This case is indistinguishable from Hines v. Davidson,489 So.2d 572 (Ala. 1986). In Hines, we noted that a legal malpractice complaint filed by a criminal defendant against trial counsel "will not support a claim for relief in the absence of an averment that the conviction of the defendant was proximately caused by the alleged negligence of the lawyer and that, but for that negligence, he would have been acquitted."Hines, 489 So.2d at 573, citing Herston v. Whitesell,374 So.2d 267 (Ala. 1979). Streeter failed to offer substantial evidence that his conviction was the proximate result of Young's alleged negligence, and that, but for Young's negligence, he would have been acquitted.

On the basis of Hines, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

HORNSBY, C.J., and MADDOX, HOUSTON and KENNEDY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

583 So. 2d 1339, 1991 WL 166277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/streeter-v-young-ala-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack