Walden v. Smith

Supreme Court of Alabama

Walden v. Smith

891 So. 2d 837, 2004 Ala. LEXIS 88, 2004 WL 819024

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedApril 16, 2004

Docket1021518 and 1021526

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 891 So. 2d 837 (Walden v. Smith) 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

Walden v. Smith, 891 So. 2d 837, 2004 Ala. LEXIS 88, 2004 WL 819024 (Ala. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

SEE, Justice.

The only matters properly before this Court on appeal are those that address Willadean Walden’s fraudulent-suppression claim (case no. 1021518). Walden, however, makes no argument on appeal related to her fraudulent-suppression claim. Walden does raise and argue in her appeal several issues that were properly raised and considered for review in her petition for the writ of certiorari, which this Court has today denied. Ex parte Walden (No. 1021373, April 16, 2004), — So.2d - (Ala.2004)(table). The issues presented by Hugh Smith in his cross-appeal are properly raised and argued; however, the trial court did not err in its disposition of those issues. For these reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court in both Walden’s appeal (case no. 1021518) and Hugh Smith’s cross-appeal (case no. 1021526).

1021518 — AFFIRMED.

1021526 — AFFIRMED.

HOUSTON, BROWN, HARWOOD, and STUART, JJ., concur.

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

SEE, Justice.

The only matters properly before this Court on appeal are those that address Willadean Walden’s fraudulent-suppression claim (case no. 1021518). Walden, however, makes no argument on appeal related to her fraudulent-suppression claim. Walden does raise and argue in her appeal several issues that were properly raised and considered for review in her petition for the writ of certiorari, which this Court has today denied. Ex parte Walden (No. 1021373, April 16, 2004), — So.2d - (Ala.2004)(table). The issues presented by Hugh Smith in his cross-appeal are properly raised and argued; however, the trial court did not err in its disposition of those issues. For these reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court in both Walden’s appeal (case no. 1021518) and Hugh Smith’s cross-appeal (case no. 1021526).

1021518 — AFFIRMED.

1021526 — AFFIRMED.

HOUSTON, BROWN, HARWOOD, and STUART, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

891 So. 2d 837, 2004 Ala. LEXIS 88, 2004 WL 819024, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walden-v-smith-ala-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack