Barko Hydraulics, LLC v. Michael Shepherd
Supreme Court of Alabama
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partStuart, Justice
(concurring in the result in part and concurring in part and dissenting in part as to the rationale).
I agree with the conclusion of the main opinion that the trial court erred by instructing the jury on mental-anguish damages and subsequently entering judgment on the general verdict returned by the jury, which presumably included such damages. However, I believe that .it is ultimately unnecessary to address the damages issue because, in my view, the trial court erred by denying the motion filed by Barko Hydraulics, LLC (“Barko”), seeking a judgment as a matter of law on Michael Shepherd’s…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Ex Parte General Motors Corp.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1999
- Brooks v. Colonial Chevrolet-Buick, Inc.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1991
- McCarty v. E. J. Korvette, Inc.Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1975
- Ex Parte MillerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1997
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.