Legal Opinion

Raia v. Goldberg

Alabama Court of Appeals

Decided February 10, 1948No. 6 Div. 528PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CARR, Judge.

In the court below the cause was tried without the aid of a jury. We are not authorized, therefore, to disturb the findings of the trial judge unless the conclusions he reached are plainly and palpably contrary to the great weight of the evidence. Hackett v. Cash, 196 Ala. 403, 72 So. 52; Jackson v. Hagin, 17 Ala.App. 216, 84 So. 547.

The record includes a well prepared opinion of the judge. We incorporate it in our opinion and adopt it as expressive of our views on the questions therein decided.

“The complaint, as amended, seeks recovery upon a series of promissory notes executed…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Hackett v. CashSupreme Court of Alabama · 1916
  2. Moog v. StrangSupreme Court of Alabama · 1881
  3. McWilliams v. PhillipsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1881
  4. American Surety Co. v. McKiearnanMichigan Supreme Court · 1943
  5. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. CharlesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1901

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Reid v. KaroleySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1960
  2. Pridgen v. HeadSupreme Court of Alabama · 1968
  3. First National Bank v. HaymesCivil Court of the City of New York · 1966
  4. Bice v. JonesCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1970
  5. Dick v. DickNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1951

2 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