Legal Opinion

Mandella v. Pennington

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

Decided June 17, 2011No. 2100131PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BRYAN, Judge.

The sole issue presented by this appeal is whether the trial court erred in holding that Eric Pennington, the defendant below, was entitled to a summary judgment with respect to the wantonness claim of Robert A. Mandella, Sr. (“Robert”), and Sharon Mandella (“Sharon”), the plaintiffs below. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the trial court did not err in entering a summary judgment in favor of Pennington on the wantonness claim, and, therefore, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Standard of Review

“We review a summary judgment de novo. American Liberty Ins.…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Lynn Strickland Sales & Serv., Inc. v. AERO-LANE FAB., INC.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1987
  2. Ex Parte EssarySupreme Court of Alabama · 2007
  3. Potter v. First Real Estate Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Alabama · 2002
  4. Bozeman v. Central Bank of the SouthSupreme Court of Alabama · 1994
  5. American Liberty Insurance Co. v. Amsouth BankSupreme Court of Alabama · 2002

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Bean-Carawan v. Tim Williams Wood Products LPDistrict Court, N.D. Alabama · 2022
  2. Derrick White, Kathya White, and Breanna White v. Pro Transport Savannah, Inc., and Rex CollierDistrict Court, N.D. Alabama · 2026
  3. Foster v. Casey Industrial, Inc.District Court, N.D. Alabama · 2025
  4. Winther v. United States Steel CorporationDistrict Court, N.D. Alabama · 2023

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

Powered by the Exa API