Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Harrison v. Harrison
Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama
Decided March 5, 1999No. 2971262Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partCrawley, Judge
I concur with Judge Monroe’s affir-mance of the trial court’s judgment on all issues except one — the wife’s motion to compel Leathers to comply with her discovery request. First of all, Judge Monroe implies that the discovery issue is not properly before us because the wife did not file a pretrial petition for a writ of mandamus compelling discovery.
“Just because [a party] could have resorted to mandamus as a means of achieving pre-trial review of the trial court’s discovery order does not mean that [she] had to resort to mandamus or be precluded from raising the issue on appeal. See, e.g.,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Rankin v. First Nat. Bank of AlabamaSupreme Court of Alabama · 1983
- Chris Myers Pontiac-GMC, Inc. v. LewterCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1997
- Finn v. RileyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
- Martin v. PaunovichDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1994