Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Tuscaloosa Chevrolet, Inc. v. Guyton

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

Decided December 11, 2009No. 2080590Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBryan, Judge

I concur in the main opinion insofar as it affirms the trial court’s denial of the motions to strike the affidavit of Shirley Guy-ton (“Shirley”) and to compel Shirley to submit to a deposition in Birmingham. I concur in the result insofar as the main opinion reverses the trial court’s order granting Shirley’s motion for relief from the judgment entered on the arbitrator’s award. However, consistent with my special writing in Credigy Receivable, Inc. v. Day, 3 So.3d 206, 213 (Ala.Civ.App.2008), I dissent from the main opinion insofar as it permits Shirley 30 days from the date of the decision…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Horton Homes, Inc. v. ShanerSupreme Court of Alabama · 2008
  2. Credigy Receivable, Inc. v. DayCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 2008

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

Powered by the Exa API