Williams v. Ward

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

Williams v. Ward

700 So. 2d 1379, 1997 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 129, 1997 WL 73118

CourtCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama

DecidedFebruary 21, 1997

Docket2951260

StatusPublished

This text of 700 So. 2d 1379 (Williams v. Ward) 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

Williams v. Ward, 700 So. 2d 1379, 1997 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 129, 1997 WL 73118 (Ala. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

CRAWLEY, Judge.

This is the third time these parties have appeared before this court in this case. See Williams v. Ward, 667 So.2d 1375 (Ala.Civ. App.1994), and Williams v. Ward, 612 So.2d 489 (Ala.Civ.App.1992). The facts and procedural history of this case are sufficiently set out in this court’s previous two opinions. In its 1994 opinion this court reversed the trial court’s dismissal of Williams’s claims against Ward in his individual capacity. On remand, the trial court, after it asked Williams to file certain exhibits and Williams failed to do so, dismissed Williams’s complaint for failure to prosecute the action (see Rule 41(b), Ala. R.Civ.P.) and for failure to respond to ordered discovery (see Rule 37(d)). Williams appeals.

Williams did not file a post-judgment motion asking the trial court to set aside the dismissal. Our supreme court has held that it will not address the issue whether a trial court erred in dismissing an action if the appellant did not file a post-judgment motion asking the trial court to set aside the dismissal. Green v. Taylor, 437 So.2d 1259 (Ala.1983). Therefore, we will not address the issue whether the trial court erred in dismissing Williams’s complaint.

AFFIRMED.

YATES, MONROE, and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. ROBERTSON, P.J., concurs in the result.

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

CRAWLEY, Judge.

This is the third time these parties have appeared before this court in this case. See Williams v. Ward, 667 So.2d 1375 (Ala.Civ. App.1994), and Williams v. Ward, 612 So.2d 489 (Ala.Civ.App.1992). The facts and procedural history of this case are sufficiently set out in this court’s previous two opinions. In its 1994 opinion this court reversed the trial court’s dismissal of Williams’s claims against Ward in his individual capacity. On remand, the trial court, after it asked Williams to file certain exhibits and Williams failed to do so, dismissed Williams’s complaint for failure to prosecute the action (see Rule 41(b), Ala. R.Civ.P.) and for failure to respond to ordered discovery (see Rule 37(d)). Williams appeals.

Williams did not file a post-judgment motion asking the trial court to set aside the dismissal. Our supreme court has held that it will not address the issue whether a trial court erred in dismissing an action if the appellant did not file a post-judgment motion asking the trial court to set aside the dismissal. Green v. Taylor, 437 So.2d 1259 (Ala.1983). Therefore, we will not address the issue whether the trial court erred in dismissing Williams’s complaint.

AFFIRMED.

YATES, MONROE, and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. ROBERTSON, P.J., concurs in the result.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

700 So. 2d 1379, 1997 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 129, 1997 WL 73118, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-ward-alacivapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack