Tucker v. General Motors Corporation

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

Tucker v. General Motors Corporation

769 So. 2d 919, 2000 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 266, 2000 WL 429929

CourtCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama

DecidedApril 21, 2000

Docket2960768

StatusPublished

This text of 769 So. 2d 919 (Tucker v. General Motors 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

Tucker v. General Motors Corporation, 769 So. 2d 919, 2000 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 266, 2000 WL 429929 (Ala. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

On Remand from the Supreme Court

CRAWLEY, Judge.

The prior judgment of this court has been affirmed in part, reversed in part, and the cause remanded by the Supreme Court of Alabama. On remand to this court, and in compliance with the Supreme Court’s opinion of September 24, 1999, 769 So.2d 903 (Ala.1999), that portion of the [920]*920judgment of the trial- court entering a summary judgment for GM and Bishop on Tucker’s breach-of-express-warranty claims is hereby reversed, and the cause remanded to the trial court for it to “(1) vacate its judgment as to Tucker’s breach-of-express-warranty claims; (2) allow Tucker to present any additional evidence he may have in opposition to the summary-judgment motion as to those claims; and (3) enter a new ruling on those claims.” 769 So.2d at 910.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED.

ROBERTSON, P.J., and YATES, MONROE, and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

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

On Remand from the Supreme Court

CRAWLEY, Judge.

The prior judgment of this court has been affirmed in part, reversed in part, and the cause remanded by the Supreme Court of Alabama. On remand to this court, and in compliance with the Supreme Court’s opinion of September 24, 1999, 769 So.2d 903 (Ala.1999), that portion of the [920]*920judgment of the trial- court entering a summary judgment for GM and Bishop on Tucker’s breach-of-express-warranty claims is hereby reversed, and the cause remanded to the trial court for it to “(1) vacate its judgment as to Tucker’s breach-of-express-warranty claims; (2) allow Tucker to present any additional evidence he may have in opposition to the summary-judgment motion as to those claims; and (3) enter a new ruling on those claims.” 769 So.2d at 910.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED.

ROBERTSON, P.J., and YATES, MONROE, and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

769 So. 2d 919, 2000 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 266, 2000 WL 429929, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tucker-v-general-motors-corporation-alacivapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack