Legal Opinion

Smith v. Baggett

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided June 21, 1928No. 6 Div. 965PublishedCited by 39 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAnderson, C. J.

The third plea was not subject to the plaintiff’s demurrer thereto. While it could have specifically charged that the rate of speed was in violation of the city ordinance, yet this court must take judicial notice of the ordinances of the city of Birmingham and the rate of speed there set up, was in violation of an ordinance of said city. Acts 1915, p. 297, § 7; Edwards v. Earnest, 206 Ala. 1, 89 So. 729, 22 A. L. R. 1387. Nor did the plea have to aver that the plaintiff negligently operated the car at the rate of speed set up as the rate set out was in violation of the ordinance and was…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Edwards v. EarnestSupreme Court of Alabama · 1921
  2. Grauer v. Alabama Great Southern R. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1923
  3. Birmingham Railway & Electric Co. v. WildmanSupreme Court of Alabama · 1898
  4. Montevallo Mining Co. v. LittleSupreme Court of Alabama · 1922
  5. Birmingham Ry. L. & P. Co. v. ColbertSupreme Court of Alabama · 1914

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

3Cited by39 opinions

  1. Moore-Handley Hardware Co. v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1939
  2. Hunt v. WardSupreme Court of Alabama · 1955
  3. Nelson v. LeeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1947
  4. Bonacci v. CerraNebraska Supreme Court · 1938
  5. Water Works & Sanitary Sewer Board of the City of Montgomery v. NormanSupreme Court of Alabama · 1968

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

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

Powered by the Exa API