Peelegrine v. Sullivan
Supreme Court of Alabama
Peelegrine v. Sullivan, 741 So. 2d 406 (Ala. 1999)
1999 Ala. LEXIS 240; 1999 WL 701665
Hooper, Cook, See, Lyons, Brown, Johnstone, Maddox, Houston
Peelegrine v. Sullivan
Opinion of the Court
The plaintiff appeals from summary judgments for the defendants in a lawsuit alleging counseling malpractice; alienation of affections; breach of contract; the tort of outrage; vicarious liability; negligent hiring, supervision, and retention; fraud; intentional infliction of emotional distress; breach of fiduciary duty; and loss of consortium. Because our study of the record on appeal discloses no genuine issue of material fact, and because the facts as shown by that record entitle the defendants to judgments as a matter of law, we
AFFIRMED.
Concurring Opinion
(concurring specially).
I adopt Justice Maddox’s special concurrence in Handley v. Richards, 518 So.2d 682 (Ala. 1987).
MADDOX, J., concurs.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Samie Joe Peelegrine, Sr. v. Fr. William John Sullivan. Samie Joe Peelegrine, Sr. v. Bishop David E. Foley.
- Cited By
- 2 cases
- Status
- Published