 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Luckie v. City of Montgomery2/12/1999
fact exist relating to probable cause to arrest, the summary judgment entered in favor of Griffin is due to be reversed. The summary judgment entered in favor of the City on Luckie's claims of malicious prosecution and tort of outrage is due to be affirmed; the summary judgment on the claims of false arrest, false imprisonment, and assault and battery is due to be reversed. Franklin, supra.
The foregoing opinion was prepared by Retired Appellate Judge L. Charles Wright while serving on active duty status as a Judge of this court under the provisions of §á12-18-10(e), Ala. Code 1975.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED.
Robertson, P.J., and Yates and Monroe, JJ., concur.
Crawley and Thompson, JJ., concur in part and Dissent in part.
CRAWLEY, Judge, Concurring in part and Dissenting in part.
I would affirm the summary judgment in its entirety for both the City and Griffin. The trial court entered a summary judgment for the City and Griffin several months after they had filed their summary-judgment motion. Luckie did not file a response to the summary-judgment motion; instead, after the motion was granted, she filed a motion to set aside the summary judgment and argued that she had not completed discovery. See Rule 56(f), Ala. R. Civ. P. The supreme court has held that one opposing a summary-judgment motion on the basis that discovery is incomplete must file a response. Ex parte Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 689 So. 2d 60 (Ala. 1997). Luckie did not respond to the summary-judgment motion until after the trial court had ruled on it; therefore, I would affirm the summary judgment.
Thompson, J., concurs.
|