Legal Opinion
Rooks v. Swift & Co.
Supreme Court of Alabama
Decided November 8, 1923No. 7 Div. 394PublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtThomas, J.
The suit was for personal injury sustained in collision with an automobile. The plaintiff had no direction or control over the driving of the vehicle in which she was a guest at the time of her injury. Birmingham Southern R. Co. v. Harrison, 203 Ala. 284, 82 South. 534.
The record does not show a motion for a new trial, and the scintilla rule of evidence will be applied to the giving of the general affirmative charge. Penticost v. Massey, 202 Ala. 681, 81 South. 637.
In McMillan v. Aiken, 205 Ala. 35, 40, 88 South. 135, rules governing the giving or refusing of such charge are adverted to, and…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- McMillan v. AikenSupreme Court of Alabama · 1920
- Jones v. BellSupreme Court of Alabama · 1917
- Birmingham Southern R. Co. v. HarrisonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1919
- Dowdell v. BeasleySupreme Court of Alabama · 1920
- Penticost v. MasseySupreme Court of Alabama · 1919
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Tullis v. BlueSupreme Court of Alabama · 1927
- Meyn v. Dulaney-Miller Auto Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1937
- Toranto v. HattawaySupreme Court of Alabama · 1929
- Tidmore v. MillsAlabama Court of Appeals · 1947
- Jefferson County Burial Soc. v. CottonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1930
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.