Legal Opinion · Dissent

Strickland v. Marshall Construction & Repair, Inc.

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided July 28, 1989No. 88-484Published

1DissentHouston, Justice

I would dismiss for failure to comply with Rule 39(c)(4), A.R.App.P. Ex parte State ex rel. Attorney General, 285 Ala. 72, 229 So.2d 27 (1969), modified in part by Harvey v. Thompson, 286 Ala. 614, 243 So.2d 748 (1971). However, even if I overlooked form for substance, I would quash the writ as having been improvidently granted, for there is legal evidence — ample legal evidence — to support the trial court’s *596determination of the facts, which the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals clearly recognized as our appellate standard of review in workmen’s compensation cases, Grantham v. Amoco Fabrics…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Slimfold Mfg. Co. v. MartinCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1981
  2. Hanvey v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1971
  3. Ex Parte State Ex Rel. Attorney GeneralSupreme Court of Alabama · 1969
  4. Slimfold Manufacturing Co. v. MartinSupreme Court of Alabama · 1982
  5. Grantham v. Amoco Fabrics Co.Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1986

1 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