Legal Opinion

Hillman v. City of Anniston

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided June 23, 1927No. 7 Div. 739PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtThomas, J.

The questions presented will be treated as argued by counsel. Appellee’s counsel concede that the motion for a new trial practically presents all matters urged as error by appellee in its cross-assignments of error, under section 6091 of the Code. Yates Mach. Co. v. Taylor, 215 Ala. 311, 110 So. 396.

This is the second appeal, 214 Ala. 522, 108 So. 539. The action was for damages, under the Homicide Act (Code 1923, § 5696), for the death of appellant’s intestate, the result of an assault by a city employee while guarding said intestate in the work of digging and loading slag for use in…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Cobb v. MaloneSupreme Court of Alabama · 1890
  2. Hillman v. City of AnnistonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1926
  3. P. B. Yates MacH. Co. v. TaylorSupreme Court of Alabama · 1926

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. City of Birmingham v. WestonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1937
  2. Williams v. City of BirminghamSupreme Court of Alabama · 1929
  3. City of Anniston v. HillmanSupreme Court of Alabama · 1930
  4. City of Montgomery v. QuinnSupreme Court of Alabama · 1944
  5. Nelson v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1956

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