Southern R. Co. v. McCants
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM. |
| Citation | Southern R. Co. v. McCants, 163 So. 365, 231 Ala. 22 (Ala. 1935) |
| Decision Date | 27 June 1935 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 804 |
| Parties | SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO. v. Robert McCANTS. |
Rehearing Denied Oct. 10, 1935
Certiorari to Court of Appeals.
Harsh, Harsh & Hare, of Birmingham, for petitioner.
Stokely, Scrivner, Dominick & Smith, of Birmingham, opposed.
Petition of Robert McCants for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that court in Southern Railway Co. v. McCants, 163 So. 363.
Writ denied.
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Wilkey v. State ex rel. Smith
...was not sufficient to support a directed verdict, and that such statement was not conclusive. Certiorari was denied on said theory, 231 Ala. 22, 163 So. 365. question for decision is illustrated by our cases hereinafter noted. In Loeb v. Webster, 213 Ala. 99, 104 So. 25, to unduly limit the......
- Hale v. Cox
-
McGuire v. State
...These questions need no re-discussion here. The case of Southern R. Co. v. McCants, 26 Ala.App. 442, 163 So. 363, certiorari denied 231 Ala. 22, 163 So. 365, furnishes no basis for defendant's insistence for a trial because of the failure of the solicitor in his opening statement to the jur......