commit reversible error in Alabama

2006Did the trial court alter or amend the final judgment entered on May 25, 2005, after the time allowed by law and without jurisdiction and without evidence to support that amended judgment?" (Weekses' brief, at 8.) Standard of Review In New Properties, L.L.C. v. Stewart , 905 So.2d 797 (Ala. 2004), this Court stated: "The trial court heard ore tenus testimony. `[W]hen a trial court hears ore tenus testimony, its findings on disputed facts are presumed correct and its judgment based on those findings will not be reversed unless the judgment is palpably erroneous or manifestly unjust.' Philpot v.

2006Did the trial court alter or amend the final judgment entered on May 25, 2005, after the time allowed by law and without jurisdiction and without evidence to support that amended judgment?" (Weekses' brief, at 8.) Standard of Review In New Properties, L.L.C. v. Stewart , 905 So.2d 797 (Ala. 2004), this Court stated: "The trial court heard ore tenus testimony. `[W]hen a trial court hears ore tenus testimony, its findings on disputed facts are presumed correct and its judgment based on those findings will not be reversed unless the judgment is palpably erroneous or manifestly unjust.' Philpot v.

1996The trial court instructed the jury: "[You] shall consider the circumstances under which the alleged statement was obtained and the appliances [sic] by which it was supposedly elicited, including the situation and mutual relations of the parties." (R.T.2099.) The trial court did not tell the jury that it had already determined the statement was made voluntarily; such a statement is proscribed by Ex parte Singleton , 465 So.2d 443 (Ala. 1985).

1987Butler v. Olshan , 280 Ala. 181 , 191 So.2d 7 (1966); see also Prosser, Law of Torts , 4th Ed., pp. 291-323 (1971)." Nelson Brothers' next issue is: "Did the trial court commit reversible error by failing to give the Appellant's Requested Jury Charge Number 34?" That requested charge is as follows: "I charge you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that where there is evidence as to damage for [sic] various causes, as to a portion of which defendant cannot be held responsible, and no evidence as to the portion of the damages resulting from the separate causes, the proof is too uncertain for you

1987Butler v. Olshan , 280 Ala. 181 , 191 So.2d 7 (1966); see also Prosser, Law of Torts , 4th Ed., pp. 291-323 (1971)." Nelson Brothers' next issue is: "Did the trial court commit reversible error by failing to give the Appellant's Requested Jury Charge Number 34?" That requested charge is as follows: "I charge you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that where there is evidence as to damage for [sic] various causes, as to a portion of which defendant cannot be held responsible, and no evidence as to the portion of the damages resulting from the separate causes, the proof is too uncertain for you

1987If you find from the evidence in this case that Gayosa was responsible for some of the damages, but you cannot determine from the evidence which portion Nelson Brothers might be responsible for, if any, then you must find for defendant, Nelson Brothers, and against the plaintiffs." Mr. Justice Somerville in Kershaw Mining Co. v. Lankford , 213 Ala. 630 , 105 So. 896 , 897 (Ala. 1925), quoted the following from 17 Corpus Juris 758 : "Where there is evidence as to damage from various causes, as to a portion of which defendant cannot be held responsible , and no evidence as to the portion of the

1987If you find from the evidence in this case that Gayosa was responsible for some of the damages, but you cannot determine from the evidence which portion Nelson Brothers might be responsible for, if any, then you must find for defendant, Nelson Brothers, and against the plaintiffs." Mr. Justice Somerville in Kershaw Mining Co. v. Lankford , 213 Ala. 630 , 105 So. 896 , 897 (Ala. 1925), quoted the following from 17 Corpus Juris 758 : "Where there is evidence as to damage from various causes, as to a portion of which defendant cannot be held responsible , and no evidence as to the portion of the

1984Baswell v. Wilks , 57 Ala. App. 98 , 326 So.2d 292 (1976).

1984Baswell v. Wilks , 57 Ala. App. 98 , 326 So.2d 292 (1976).

1983Howard v. Howard, supra. Did the trial court commit reversible error by not requiring Brenda and Jim Richards to testify about sex acts prior to their marriage?

1979The specific oral charge to which APCo objected and raised as its third assignment of error reads as follows: For the record, I will state that what I am about to read is from the case of Alabama Power Company vs Mosley , 295 Ala. 394 , 318 So.2d 260 . `The duty of an electric company in conveying a current of high potential to exercise commensurate care under the circumstances, requires it to insulate its wires and use reasonable care to keep the same insulated, wherever it may reasonably be anticipated that persons, pursuing business or pleasure, may come in contact therewith.

1979III Did the trial court commit reversible error in advising the jury in its oral charge that it was reading from the case of Alabama Power Co. v. Mosley , 294 Ala. 394 , 318 So.2d 260 (1975)?

1979III Did the trial court commit reversible error in advising the jury in its oral charge that it was reading from the case of Alabama Power Co. v. Mosley , 294 Ala. 394 , 318 So.2d 260 (1975)?

1938The question presented is: Did the lower court commit reversible error in the rendition of decrees pursuant to the decision on pleading in this case [Crawford et al. v, Horton et al., 234 Ala. 439 , 175 So. 310 ], where the respective propositions of law were decided.

1938The question presented is: Did the lower court commit reversible error in the rendition of decrees pursuant to the decision on pleading in this case [Crawford et al. v, Horton et al., 234 Ala. 439 , 175 So. 310 ], where the respective propositions of law were decided.