Legal Opinion

City of Birmingham v. Guy

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided March 5, 1931No. 6 Div. 843PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAnderson, C. J.

We think that the claim filed substantially complied with the statute. City of Bessemer v. Barnett, 212 Ala. 202, 102 So. 23; McKinnon v. City of Birmingham, 196 Ala. 56, 71 So. 463; Grambs v. City of Birmingham, 202 Ala. 490, 80 So. 874. The statute does not require that the claim should set .forth or describe the cause or circumstances of the injury or the negligence charged as would perhaps be necessary in a complaint.

There was no error in refusing defendant’s requested charge E. If not otherwise faulty, it hypothesizes the fact of a defect in the sidewalk and “stepping stone” and no…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. City of Bessemer v. BarnettSupreme Court of Alabama · 1924
  2. Grambs v. City of BirminghamSupreme Court of Alabama · 1919
  3. Mayor of Birmingham v. TayloeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1894
  4. McKinnon v. City of BirminghamSupreme Court of Alabama · 1916
  5. City of Montgomery v. RossSupreme Court of Alabama · 1916

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Ray v. City of BirminghamSupreme Court of Alabama · 1963
  2. King v. City of BirminghamSupreme Court of Alabama · 1932
  3. Erwin Mfg. Co. v. CroftSupreme Court of Alabama · 1931
  4. City of Birmingham v. MonetteSupreme Court of Alabama · 1941

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

Powered by the Exa API