Alabama Power Co. v. Adams

12 Citing cases

  1. Alabama Power Co. v. Herzfeld

    114 So. 49 (Ala. 1927)   Cited 28 times

    Each paragraph in an application to condemn lands is a separate suit. Code 1923, §§ 3861, 3866; Ala. Power Co. v. Adams, 191 Ala. 54, 67 So. 838. An appeal from an order of condemnation cannot be legally taken after the expiration of 30 days from the date of the order. Code 1923, § 7492; State v. Williams, 125 Ala. 116, 28 So. 401. Where a witness has testified as to his opinion of the value of land, great latitude in cross-examination should be allowed. Tanner v. L. N., 60 Ala. 621; Phœnix Ins. Co. v. Copeland, 86 Ala. 551, 6 So. 143, 4 L.R.A. 848; Snell v. Roach, 150 Ala. 469, 43 So. 189; Pritchard v. Fowler, 171 Ala. 662, 55 So. 147.

  2. Bankston v. Lakeman

    122 So. 819 (Ala. 1929)   Cited 8 times

    The judgment is penal, and defendant should have a review of the facts, and not be confined to the findings of the trial court. See Board of Revenue v. Merrill, 193 Ala. 542, 68 So. 971; Ala. Power Co. v. Adams, 191 Ala. 54, 67 So. 838; Anniston Loan Co. v. Stickney, 132 Ala. 587, 31 So. 465; Max J. Winkler Brokerage Co. v. Courson, 160 Ala. 374, 49 So. 341; Independent Pub. Co. v. Press Ass'n, 102 Ala. 475, 15 So. 947. T. B. Russell, of Haleyville, and R. A. Cooner, of Jasper, for appellee.

  3. Downey v. Johnson

    19 So. 2d 85 (Ala. Crim. App. 1944)   Cited 4 times

    The case was carefully tried under the judicial guidance of the able trial judge. It was the judgment of the court that the verdict of the jury should not be disturbed. Under the law and facts in the case, we are compelled to the conclusion that we are without authority to take a contrary view. Davis v. State, 29 Ala. App. 421, 198 So. 153; Taylor v. State, 30 Ala. App. 316, 5 So.2d 117; Alabama Power Co. v. Adams, ante, p. 438, 18 So.2d 145. It is ordered that the cause be affirmed.

  4. Montgomery City Lines v. Hawes

    20 So. 2d 536 (Ala. Crim. App. 1944)   Cited 10 times

    As recently as May 23, 1944, in an opinion written by Judge Rice, this court upheld the judgment of the lower court in awarding damages to a plaintiff in very much the same manner and under somewhat similar circumstances as claimed in this case. Alabama Power Co. v. Adams, ante, p. 438, 18 So.2d 145. Our courts conform to the rule that a boarding passenger on a street car or bus (as in this case) is presumed to have reached a place of security and safety when he or she has entered the portals of the conveyance, and there is no duty imposed on the driver to keep the car stationary until the passenger is seated.

  5. Jones v. Jones

    31 So. 2d 81 (Ala. 1947)   Cited 19 times

    The remedy is by certiorari. Easton v. State, 39 Ala. 551, 87 Am.Dec. 49; Ex parte Dickens, 162 Ala. 272, 50 So. 218; Alabama Power Co. v. Adams, 191 Ala. 54, 67 So. 838, Ann.Cas. 1917C, 878; Board of Revenue of Covington County v. Merrill, 193 Ala. 521, 542, 68 So. 971; Preskitt v. Chandler, 214 Ala. 278, 107 So. 750; Bankston v. Lakeman, 219 Ala. 508, 122 So. 819; Pope v. State, 229 Ala. 643, 159 So. 51. The writ of mandamus is an extraordinary legal remedy grantable only when petitioner shows a clear, specific legal right for the enforcement of which there is no other adequate remedy.

  6. Barnett v. Patillo

    41 So. 2d 412 (Ala. Crim. App. 1949)   Cited 2 times

    The court was not in error in admitting evidence relating to this aspect of the case. Alabama Power Co. v. Adams, 31 Ala. App. 438, 18 So.2d 145. This review is in response to assignment of error number 2.

  7. Magic City Bottling Co. v. Tolbert

    41 So. 2d 619 (Ala. Crim. App. 1949)   Cited 12 times

    This observation and truism must be applied also in the instant case. By analogy the following additional authorities lend support to our view: Alabama Power Co. v. Adams, 31 Ala. App. 438, 18 So.2d 145; Louisville N. R. Co. v. Weathers, 163 Ala. 48, 50 So. 268; Birmingham Electric Co. v. Walden, 33 Ala. App. 211, 31 So.2d 762; Mobile Light R. Co. v. Gallasch, 210 Ala. 219, 97 So. 733. In rebuttal appellee was asked: "Was it a worm or mother of vinegar?

  8. State v. Kuhnley

    74 Ariz. 10 (Ariz. 1952)   Cited 41 times
    Holding that State was permitted to introduce extrinsic evidence showing prior conduct by defendant to contradict material evidence testified to by defendant

    * * *" We believe the following definition from Alabama Power Co. v. Adams, 31 Ala. App. 438, 18 So.2d 145, 146, fits the facts in the instant case: "Such acts or declarations as are thus received (as part of the res gestae) must have been done or made at the time of the occurrence of the main fact, must have a tendency to elucidate it, and must so harmonize with it as obviously to constitute one transaction.

  9. Simpson v. Ward

    77 So. 2d 376 (Ala. Crim. App. 1954)   Cited 2 times

    When trial judge refuses to grant a new trial the presumption in favor of the verdict is thereby strengthened. Cobb v. Malone, 92 Ala. 630, 9 So. 738; Tidmore v. Mills, 33 Ala. App. 243, 32 So.2d 769. The measure of damages or compensation for physical suffering is left to the sound discretion and good judgment of the jury trying the case, and it is within the province of the jury to award such amount as it believes is reasonable in the light and under guidance of all the facts and circumstances in connection with the injury. Alabama Power Co. v. Adams, 31 Ala. App. 438, 18 So.2d 145; Montgomery City Lines v. Hawes, supra. HARWOOD, Judge.

  10. Jones v. Kendrick Realty Co.

    252 So. 2d 61 (Ala. 1971)   Cited 8 times

    Easton v. State, 39 Ala. 551, 87 Am.Dec. 49." (Par. Added) Alabama Power Co. v. Adams, 191 Ala. 54, 55, 67 So. 838, 839. The words in parentheses appear in the original opinion in Record of Opinions, Vol. 59. These words were omitted in 191 Ala. at 55.