Thompson v. Curry

Supreme Court of Alabama

Thompson v. Curry

56 So. 2d 362, 256 Ala. 564

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJanuary 17, 1952

Docket4 Div. 680

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 56 So. 2d 362 (Thompson v. Curry) 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

Thompson v. Curry, 56 So. 2d 362, 256 Ala. 564 (Ala. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

SIMPSON, Justice.

This petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals seeks a review and revision of that court’s opinion and judgment reversing the judgment below on the ground that “the evidence is so overwhelmingly against the verdict of the jury that it would be unjust and wrong to let it stand.” The petition is [565]*565not well taken. This conclusion is but a finding of fact. Under well-recognized and long-established principles of review consistently adhered to by this court, we accept that conclusion without going to the record to determine its correctness, of consequence of which it is not subject to revision. Rainey v. State, 245 Ala. 458(8), 17 So.2d 687; Clayton v. State, 244 Ala. 307, 13 So.2d 423.

Writ denied.

LIVINGSTON, C. J., and BROWN, LAWSON, and STAKELY, JJ., concur.

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

SIMPSON, Justice.

This petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals seeks a review and revision of that court’s opinion and judgment reversing the judgment below on the ground that “the evidence is so overwhelmingly against the verdict of the jury that it would be unjust and wrong to let it stand.” The petition is [565]*565not well taken. This conclusion is but a finding of fact. Under well-recognized and long-established principles of review consistently adhered to by this court, we accept that conclusion without going to the record to determine its correctness, of consequence of which it is not subject to revision. Rainey v. State, 245 Ala. 458(8), 17 So.2d 687; Clayton v. State, 244 Ala. 307, 13 So.2d 423.

Writ denied.

LIVINGSTON, C. J., and BROWN, LAWSON, and STAKELY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 So. 2d 362, 256 Ala. 564, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-curry-ala-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack