Legal Opinion

MacE v. Centel Business Systems

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided July 21, 1989No. 88-633PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Virginia A. Mace filed a negligence action against Centel Business Systems and South Central Bell Telephone Company on the last day of the statutory period of limitations, i.e., two years after her alleged injury. She did not pay the filing fee, however, and although she attached an affidavit of substantial hardship, that affidavit had not been approved by a circuit judge. See Ala. Code 1975, § 12-19-70. Furthermore, Mace did not include the address of either defendant, a summons to be served on either defendant, or any instructions for service of process or any explanation for the lack of…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. De-Gas, Inc. v. Midland ResourcesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1985
  2. Ward v. Saben Appliance Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1980
  3. Pettibone Crane Co., Inc. v. FosterSupreme Court of Alabama · 1986
  4. Freer v. PotterSupreme Court of Alabama · 1982
  5. Finkelstein v. LovellSupreme Court of Alabama · 1984

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Baker v. BennettSupreme Court of Alabama · 1992
  2. Boostrom v. BachIndiana Supreme Court · 1993
  3. Latham v. PhillipsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1991
  4. Arrington v. Courtyard Citiflats, LLCSupreme Court of Alabama · 2015
  5. Maxwell v. Spring Hill CollegeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1993

7 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