Legal Opinion

Loveman, Joseph & Loeb v. Himrod

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided March 23, 1933No. 6 Div. 334PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Per curiam

The question of fact argued by petitioner, and in no manner appearing in the opinion sought to be reviewed, is beyond the scope of the limited review of this court of decisions of the Court of Appeals, confined as it is to questions of law therein presented, as set forth in Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. v. Minderhout, 195 Ala. 420, 71 So. 91, and subsequent decisions. The following, among other of our eases, serve as illustrations: Ballard v. State, 219 Ala. 222, 121 So. 502; McKinney V. State, 225 Ala. 7, 141 So. 708; Baumhausor v. Liquid Carbonic Corp., 223 Ala. 244, 135 So. 427; Hardy v.…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. MinderhoutSupreme Court of Alabama · 1916
  2. Ballard v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1929
  3. Ballard v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1929
  4. Baumhauer v. Liquid Carbonic CorporationSupreme Court of Alabama · 1931
  5. Hardy v. First Nat. Bank of JacksonvilleSupreme Court of Alabama · 1929

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. New York Life Ins. Co. v. SinquefieldSupreme Court of Alabama · 1935
  2. Tortomasi v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1939
  3. Birmingham Gas Co. v. SandersSupreme Court of Alabama · 1935
  4. Milazzo v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1939
  5. Tennessee, A. & G. Ry. v. CardonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1937

7 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