Legal Opinion · Dissent

Stephens v. Nelson

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

Decided September 6, 2013No. 2111181 and 2120111Published

1DissentThomas, Judge

I respectfully dissent from the main opinion. Timothy Edward Stephens and Rebecca Lynn Stephens Kimbrough both filed a “motion to compel and for temporary relief and for specific acts” and asserted that the motions were filed pursuant to Rule 70, Ala. R. Civ. P. However, “ ‘[i]t is well settled that “[t]his Court will look at the substance of a motion rather than its title, to determine how that motion is to be considered under the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure.” ’ ” Turner v. Moore, 76 So.3d 842, 844 (Ala.Civ.App.2011) (quoting Brasfield & Gorrie, LLC v. Soho Partners, LLC, 35 So.3d 601,…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Pontius v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 2005
  2. State v. ThomasSupreme Court of Alabama · 1989
  3. Carter v. MitchellSupreme Court of Alabama · 1932
  4. T.L.D. v. C.G.Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 2002
  5. McCulloch v. RobertsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1973

6 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