Moore v. Williams, 519 So. 2d 1337 (Ala. 1988). · Go Syfert
Search
Moore v. Williams, 519 So. 2d 1337 (Ala. 1988). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
22 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Elgin v. Alfa Corp. (ala, 1992-04-17)
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1988 2007 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Elgin v. Alfa Corp. (2×)
Ala. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See Moore v. Williams, 519 So.2d 1337 (Ala.1988) (stating the "abuse of discretion" standard used in reviewing a judgment based on ore tenus testimony); Ala. Code 1974, § 12-2-7(1) (stating that "no weight shall be given the decision of a trial judge upon the facts where the evidence is not taken orally before the judge").
discussed Cited "see, e.g." McCrary v. Butler
Ala. · 1989 · signal: see also · confidence low
Robinson v. Hamilton , 496 So.2d 8 (Ala. 1986)." (Emphasis in original.) King v. Travelers Insurance Co. , 513 So.2d 1023 , 1026 (Ala. 1987); see also Moore v. Williams , 519 So.2d 1337 (Ala. 1988); Sims v. Sims , 502 So.2d 722 (Ala. 1987).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Joseph F. Moore, Jr., and Betty H. Moore
v.
Dianna F. Williams
86-1037.
Supreme Court of Alabama.
Jan 29, 1988.
519 So. 2d 1337
1988 WL 8644
William H. Saliba and Patricia A. Winston, Mobile, for appellants. Harry B. Bailey III and James E. Atchison, Mobile, for appellees.
Houston.
Cited by 16 opinions  |  Published

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Mobile County determining a boundary line between coterminous landowners. We affirm.

The plaintiffs, Joseph F. Moore, Jr., and Betty H. Moore, argue that they acquired title to a narrow strip of land owned by defendant Dianna F. Williams, by adversely possessing it. After a hearing, in which conflicting testimony was presented, the trial court found that they had not, and entered judgment in favor of Williams.

Where a trial court has heard ore tenus testimony, as in this case, its judgment based upon that testimony is presumed correct and will be reversed only if, after consideration of the evidence and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, the judgment is found to be plainly and palpably wrong. Furthermore, where a trial court does not make specific findings of fact concerning an issue, this Court will assume that the trial court made those findings necessary to support its judgment, unless such findings would be clearly erroneous. Robinson v. Hamilton, 496 So.2d 8 (Ala. 1986).

We have reviewed the record. As previously stated, a hearing was held in which conflicting testimony was presented to the trial court concerning the plaintiffs' allegations. The trial court, without making specific findings of fact, ruled in defendant Williams's favor, setting the boundary line in accordance with a survey prepared by a registered land surveyor. We cannot say that the trial court's decision *Page 1338 was plainly and palpably wrong; therefore, the judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

TORBERT, C.J., MADDOX, ALMON and BEATTY, JJ., concur.