Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Crimson Industries, Inc. v. Eller

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

Decided October 9, 1998No. 2970211Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partCrawley, Judge

Crimson presents four arguments on appeal, namely: (1) that the trial court erred by failing to enter specific findings of fact and conclusions of law on legal causation and medical causation; (2) that the trial court erred by determining that Eller had established legal and medical causation; (3) that the trial court erred by accepting as expert testimony the deposition of Dr. Johnny Bates; and (4) that the court erred because its finding of permanent total disability was not supported by substantial evidence. Although I find no reversible error as to the first three arguments, I dissent…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Mead Paper Co. v. BrizendineCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1990
  2. Armstrong v. LEWIS & ASSOCIATES CONST. CO.Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1984
  3. Gibson v. Southern Stone Co., Inc.Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1987
  4. M.C. Dixon Lumber Co., Inc. v. PhillipsCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1994
  5. Elite Transp. Services v. HumphreysCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1997

4 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