Legal Opinion

Holland v. Strickland

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided March 27, 1992No. 1900905Published

1Per curiam

After a thorough review of the record, the exhibits, and the briefs filed in this case, we are unable to conclude that the trial judge erred in directing a verdict for the defendants. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court based on that verdict is affirmed. See Bailey v. Avera, 560 So.2d 1038 (Ala.1990); Watson v. McGee, 348 So.2d 461 (Ala.1977); Chicago, Mobile Development Co. v. G. C. Coggin Co., 259 Ala. 152, 66 So.2d 151 (1953); Watkins v. Roden Coal Co., 205 Ala. 367, 87 So. 565 (1921).

AFFIRMED.

HORNSBY, C.J., and ALMON, ADAMS, STEAGALL and INGRAM, JJ., concur.

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Watson v. McGeeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1977
  2. Bailey v. AveraSupreme Court of Alabama · 1990
  3. Chicago, Mobile Development Co. v. G. C. Coggin Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1953
  4. Watkins v. Roden Coal Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1921