Legal Opinion

Kirkland v. Neeley

Alabama Court of Appeals

Decided April 16, 1929No. 8 Div. 675PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The first and most urgent insistence made by appellant in his written argument is that the trial court committed error in overruling defendant's motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict of the jury was contrary to the weight of the evidence. He cites no authority to sustain his contention, and admits that the evidence on every point is in conflict. Where this is the case this court will not find error in the rulings of the trial judge in overruling the motion for new trial. Cobb v. Malone, 91 Ala. 388, 8 So. 693; 1 Mitchie's Dig. 547, § 1002.

It is insisted that the court erred in…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Alabama Great Southern Railroad v. BaileySupreme Court of Alabama · 1895
  2. Federal Automobile Ins. Ass'n v. MeyersSupreme Court of Alabama · 1928
  3. Kyle v. BostickSupreme Court of Alabama · 1846
  4. Towns v. AlfordSupreme Court of Alabama · 1841
  5. Mississippi Lumber Co. v. Smith & Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1907

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Craig v. RootSupreme Court of Alabama · 1946
  2. Kirkland v. NeeleySupreme Court of Alabama · 1929

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API