 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Panell v. Henslee12/30/1999
the statute. See Ex parte Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 601 So. 2d 93, 96 (Ala. 1992) ("the fundamental rule is to ascertain and effectuate the legislative intent as expressed in the act, which requires looking to the language used, the reason and necessity for the act, and the purpose sought to be obtained"); Ball v. Jones, 272 Ala. 305, 315-16, 132 So. 2d 120, 129 (1961) ("In case of doubt or inconsistency between language in the enacting part of a statute and language in the preamble, the preamble controls because it expresses in the most satisfactory manner the reason and purpose of the act."); State ex rel. City of Mobile v. Board of Revenue & Road Comm'rs, 202 Ala. 303, 304, 80 So. 368, 369 (1918) ("The title of an act is a part of the act, made so by the provisions of section 45 of the Constitution," and "the recitals of the title are available aids to the removal of ambiguity or uncertainty in the enacting clauses of an act.").
The doctrinal damage done by the main opinion is entirely unnecessary to the resolution of the case before us. The plaintiff suffered an abundance of damage as a proximate result of the alleged acts, omissions, and failures months more than two years before the plaintiff filed his action against his original lawyer. Thus, under traditional theories of tort and limitations, the summary judgment entered by the trial court was appropriate. Cofield v. Smith, 495 So. 2d 61 (Ala. 1986), and Michael v. Beasley, 583 So. 2d 245 (Ala. 1991). Thus, while I concur in the result of the main opinion, I respectfully dissent from the new interpretation of ยง 6-5-574 proposed by the main opinion.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Alabama Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|