Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Dyess v. Dyess

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

Decided April 13, 2012No. 2110020Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

MOORE, Judge,

concurring in the judgment of reversal but dissenting as to the rationale and the remand instructions.

The main opinion concludes that “the evidence before the trial court was insufficient to support its determination that [Edward Dyess and Lajune White Dyess] had clearly and convincingly entered into a common-law marriage,” reverses the trial court’s judgment “insofar as it determined that the parties were married” and divided the parties’ property, and remands the cause with instructions that the trial court enter a judgment consistent with the main opinion. 94 So.3d at 390. I…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Hawk v. Bavarian Motor WorksSupreme Court of Alabama · 1977
  2. Manci v. Ball, Koons & WatsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 2008
  3. Melton v. JenkinsCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 2012

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

Powered by the Exa API