Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Ladd v. Stockham

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided March 25, 2016No. 1140365 and 1140407Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partShaw, Justice

(dissenting in part and concurring in the l-esult in case no. 1140407).

After prevailing in the underlying action, Margai-et Stockham, as personal represen*475tative of the estate of Herbert Stockham, deceased (“Stockham”), moved the trial court to award her costs, fees, and expenses. The trial court denied the motion, and Stockham challenges that ruling in her cross-appeal, case no. 1140407.

Stockham argued in the trial court and on appeal that she is entitled under Ala. Code 1975, §§ 19-3B-708 and -709, to an award of costs, fees, and expenses. Those costs, fees, and expenses would not be paid by…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. City of Birmingham v. City of FairfieldSupreme Court of Alabama · 1981
  2. Regions Bank v. LowreySupreme Court of Alabama · 2012
  3. Regions Bank v. LowreySupreme Court of Alabama · 2014

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

Powered by the Exa API