Legal Opinion

Graham v. Werfel

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided October 11, 1934No. 3 Div. 110PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

FOSTER, Justice.

Count 1 of the complaint shows a duty owing by defendant to plaintiff, and alleges a negligent breach of that duty, from which plaintiff was injured as a proximate result.

It was not subject to the demurrer .interposed to it. Dozier v. Woods, 190 Ala. 279, 67 So. 283; Maddox v. Jones, 205 Ala. 598, 89 So. 38; Buffalo Rock Co. v. Davis, 228 Ala. 603, 154 So. 556; Strickland v. Davis, 221 Ala. 247, 128 So. 233; Ruffin C. & T. Co. v. Rich, 214 Ala. 633, 108 So. 596; Louis Pizitz Dry Goods Co. v. Cusimano, 206 Ala. 689, 91 So. 779.

Count 2 alleges a direct wanton or willful injury…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Godfrey v. VinsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1926
  2. Cooper v. AgeeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1930
  3. Birmingham Electric Co. v. MannSupreme Court of Alabama · 1933
  4. Louis Pizitz Dry Goods Co. v. CusimanoSupreme Court of Alabama · 1921
  5. Karpeles v. City Ice Delivery Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1916

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Jackson v. EdwardsSupreme Court of Florida · 1940
  2. Jack Cole, Inc. v. WalkerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1941
  3. McGough Bakeries Corporation v. ReynoldsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1948
  4. Alabama Power Co. v. BowersSupreme Court of Alabama · 1949
  5. Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. SwainSupreme Court of Alabama · 1947

9 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