Supreme Court of Alabama, 1999

Peelegrine v. Sullivan

Supreme Court of Alabama · Decided September 10, 1999 · No. 1971882 and 1980276 · Hooper, Cook, See, Lyons, Brown, Johnstone, Maddox, Houston

741 So. 2d 406; 1999 Ala. LEXIS 240; 1999 WL 701665 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Bailey v. Faulkner (Ala. 2006)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

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 *407affirm the summary judgments. Rule 56(c), Ala.R.Civ.P.

AFFIRMED.

HOOPER, C.J., and COOK, SEE, LYONS, BROWN, and JOHNSTONE, JJ., concur. MADDOX and HOUSTON, JJ., concur specially.

Concurring Opinion

HOUSTON, Justice

(concurring specially).

I adopt Justice Maddox’s special concurrence in Handley v. Richards, 518 So.2d 682 (Ala. 1987).

MADDOX, J., concurs.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.