Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Hogan v. Hogan

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

Decided December 4, 2015No. 2140556Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partDonaldson, Judge

I concur in the main opinion except for that portion of the opinion reversing the judgment awarding ownership of the dogs to Darlene Marie Hogan (“the wife”) and thereby implicitly ordering the trial court to award the dogs to Randall Hogan (“the husband”). The husband acknowledges that the evidence presented to the trial court regarding the ownership of the dogs was conflicting. It was within the trial judge’s discretion to find that any presumption that may have attached based on the husband’s possession of both dogs was overcome by the wife’s explanation of that possession. As observed in…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Smith v. Mark Dodge, Inc.Supreme Court of Alabama · 2006
  2. Placey v. PlaceyCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 2010
  3. Argo v. GreeneCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1983

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

Powered by the Exa API