Harville v. Goza
Supreme Court of Alabama
1Opinion of the Court
In Harville's brief this statement appears: "The outcome of this case before this Court turns on whether Alabama actually has a scintilla rule, or whether this state has the substantial evidence rule and calls it a scintilla rule."
The scintilla rule permits a case on motion for a directed verdict, to go to the jury where there is a scintilla of evidence to support the theory of the complaint. Perdue v.Mitchell, 373 So.2d 650 (Ala. 1979). But, when a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is filed, the trial judge must determine whether there is sufficient evidence to supportthe jury…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., Inc. v. SealySupreme Court of Alabama · 1979
- Perdue v. MitchellSupreme Court of Alabama · 1979
3Cited by11 opinions
- King Mines Resort, Inc. v. MALACHI M. & MINERALS, INC.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1987
- Morgan v. South Central Bell Telephone Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1985
- Ex Parte BennettSupreme Court of Alabama · 1982
- Marion v. HallSupreme Court of Alabama · 1983
- Morgan v. SOUTH CENT. BELL TELEPHONE CO.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1985
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.