Hill v. Chambless
Supreme Court of Alabama
1Opinion of the Court
The parties raise the question whether two defendant police officers of the City of Mobile were immune, under the doctrine of qualified immunity, from liability on the plaintiff's claim that they had violated the civil rights of the plaintiff's intestate. The plaintiff says her intestate died as a result of injuries he sustained as he was being arrested by the two officers. We do not reach this question, however, because of a procedural problem. The summary judgment for the defendant officers must be reversed and the case remanded because the trial judge failed to comply with the procedures…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Pate v. Rollison Logging Equipment, Inc.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1993
- Mardis v. Ford Motor Credit Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1994
- Hillard v. Southtrust Bank of Alabama, N.A.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1991
- Kelly v. HarrisonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1989
3Cited by8 opinions
- Van Knight v. SmokerSupreme Court of Alabama · 2000
- Woodruff v. City of TuscaloosaSupreme Court of Alabama · 2012
- Moore v. GAB Robins North America, Inc.Supreme Court of Alabama · 2002
- Shaw v. State Ex Rel. HayesCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 2006
- Dean v. Director, Department of Industrial RelationsCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 2001
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.