Skip to main content
· 3/19/2010

Espinoza v. Rudolph

Citations

  • 46 So. 3d 403
  • 2010 Ala. LEXIS 48
  • 2010 WL 996531

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • refusing to reverse a judgment based on an argument that had been raised for the first time in a postjudgment motion because there was no indication that the trial court had considered that argument

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Cobb, Lyons, Woodall, Stuart, Smith, Bolin, Parker, Murdock, Shaw

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.