Legal Opinion

Espey v. Convenience Marketers

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided February 15, 1991No. 89-859PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

James A. Espey, suing through his father and guardian, James Q. Espey; and James Q. Espey, individually, filed an action against Convenience Marketers, Inc. ("Convenience"), alleging, among other claims, that they were entitled to damages from Convenience pursuant to Ala. Code 1975, §§ 6-5-70 and -71. James A. Espey was a minor at the time of the events that led to this case and is an incompetent. The father asserts a claim pursuant to § 6-5-70. Both the father and the son assert claims pursuant to § 6-5-71.

The trial court entered a summary judgment for Convenience. The Espeys appeal the…

Also in this document: Concurring in part, dissenting in part.

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Marks v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1909
  2. Sarlls v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
  3. Adler v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1876
  4. Allred v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1889
  5. Parker v. Miller Brewing Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1990

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Jones v. BP Oil Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1993
  2. McIsaac v. Monte Carlo Club, Inc.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1991
  3. McLeod v. Cannon Oil Corp.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1992
  4. Adkison v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1994
  5. Opinion of the JusticesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1997

9 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