Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

122 So. 3d 185

Hall v. Hall

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

Decided January 11, 2013

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · decided 2013-01-11

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently October 2015

5 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2013-01-11

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

THOMPSON, Presiding Judge,

¶1concurring in part and dissenting in part.

¶2I concur with that portion of the opinion affirming the trial court’s denial of the husband’s motion filed pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4), Ala. R. Civ. P. However, I respectfully dissent from that portion of the opinion holding that the trial court’s rulings on the mother’s request for pendente lite relief and her motion to compel were void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the mother failed to pay a filing fee.

/122/so3d/185 · .json · Public domain