purview rule in Alabama

2009Ward v. Ullery, 442 So.2d 99 (Ala.Civ.App.1983).

1984Continental Oil Co. v. Williams, supra. Here, the court has stated in its order of August 5 that the March 29 decree should read "$250 per week" and not "$250 per month as child support." We are convinced that the trial court intended that the modification order of March 29, 1983 be $250 per week rather than $250 per month, because the January 4, 1983 decree ordered the husband to pay $400 per week for two children, whereas at the time of the modification order there was only one child living with the wife.

1982The requested affirmative charge in this case does not fall within the purview of the exception to Rule 51's application set forth in Pruitt v. Pruitt , 343 So.2d 495 (Ala. 1977).

1972We believe the opinion herein expressed by Officer Birmingham falls within the purview of the rule set forth in Gast v. State, 232 Ala. 307 , 167 So. 554 , wherein the court stated: . .

1972We believe the opinion herein expressed by Officer Birmingham falls within the purview of the rule set forth in Gast v. State, 232 Ala. 307 , 167 So. 554 , wherein the court stated: . .

1971The doctrine of res judicata has been applied by the courts of Alabama in many cases, and in the process the Alabama Supreme Court has fashioned tests which the facts of each case must pass in order for the doctrine to be applicable, and they are lucidly promulgated in the case of Hathcock v. Mitchell, 277 Ala. 586 , 173 So.2d 576 , wherein it is said: “The rule of res judicata applies in those cases where the suits are the same, the identical point is directly in issue, and judgment has been rendered in the first suit on that point. [Citations omitted.] Where the issues in the first suit were

1971The doctrine of res judicata has been applied by the courts of Alabama in many cases, and in the process the Alabama Supreme Court has fashioned tests which the facts of each case must pass in order for the doctrine to be applicable, and they are lucidly promulgated in the case of Hathcock v. Mitchell, 277 Ala. 586 , 173 So.2d 576 , wherein it is said: “The rule of res judicata applies in those cases where the suits are the same, the identical point is directly in issue, and judgment has been rendered in the first suit on that point. [Citations omitted.] Where the issues in the first suit were

1933In Littler v. Jayne, 124 Ill. 123 , 16 N. E. 374 , no point was made nor considered by the court, as we read the opinion, based upon the absence of necessary parties.

1933In Littler v. Jayne, 124 Ill. 123 , 16 N. E. 374 , no point was made nor considered by the court, as we read the opinion, based upon the absence of necessary parties.

1932Plaintiff, therefore, at most, was an invitee of Brock, and a mere licensee on the automobile, to whom the defendant bank owed no duty other than not to negligently injure him after its said agent Brock discovered his peril, or not to wantonly or willfully injure him in the use of the automobile, and as observed in Crider v. Yolande Coal & Coke Company, 206 Ala. 71, 73 , 89 So. 285, 287 , “Our judgment is that, on the evidence in this case, defendant’s agent, as matter of law, was not, within the purview of the stated rule [of subsequent negligence}, made aware of plaintiff’s danger in advance

1932Plaintiff, therefore, at most, was an invitee of Brock, and a mere licensee on the automobile, to whom the defendant bank owed no duty other than not to negligently injure him after its said agent Brock discovered his peril, or not to wantonly or willfully injure him in the use of the automobile, and as observed in Crider v. Yolande Coal & Coke Company, 206 Ala. 71, 73 , 89 So. 285, 287 , “Our judgment is that, on the evidence in this case, defendant’s agent, as matter of law, was not, within the purview of the stated rule [of subsequent negligence}, made aware of plaintiff’s danger in advance