Wilkerson v. Deaton

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

Wilkerson v. Deaton

550 So. 2d 438, 1989 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 252, 1989 WL 89597

CourtCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama

DecidedAugust 9, 1989

DocketCiv. 6945

StatusPublished

This text of 550 So. 2d 438 (Wilkerson v. Deaton) 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

Wilkerson v. Deaton, 550 So. 2d 438, 1989 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 252, 1989 WL 89597 (Ala. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

INGRAM, Presiding Judge.

The Circuit Court of St. Clair County denied Joseph E. Wilkerson’s Rule 60(b), A.R.Civ.P., motion for relief from a judgment previously rendered against him. Wilkerson appeals pro se, seeking in essence a reversal of the trial court’s ruling on this motion. Although Wilkerson argues that the trial court erred to reversal, he failed to cite, as required under Rule 28 of the Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure, authority in brief to support his position. In view of Wilkerson’s failure to substantially comply with Rule 28, we pre-termit a discussion of the issues raised in this case. Lokey v. State Department of Industrial Relations, 527 So.2d 1326 (Ala. Civ.App.1988); O’Barr v. Genuine Parts Co., 519 So.2d 554 (Ala.Civ.App.1987). This judgment is thus due to be affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTSON and RUSSELL, JJ., concur.

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

INGRAM, Presiding Judge.

The Circuit Court of St. Clair County denied Joseph E. Wilkerson’s Rule 60(b), A.R.Civ.P., motion for relief from a judgment previously rendered against him. Wilkerson appeals pro se, seeking in essence a reversal of the trial court’s ruling on this motion. Although Wilkerson argues that the trial court erred to reversal, he failed to cite, as required under Rule 28 of the Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure, authority in brief to support his position. In view of Wilkerson’s failure to substantially comply with Rule 28, we pre-termit a discussion of the issues raised in this case. Lokey v. State Department of Industrial Relations, 527 So.2d 1326 (Ala. Civ.App.1988); O’Barr v. Genuine Parts Co., 519 So.2d 554 (Ala.Civ.App.1987). This judgment is thus due to be affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTSON and RUSSELL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

550 So. 2d 438, 1989 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 252, 1989 WL 89597, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilkerson-v-deaton-alacivapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack