Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

142 So. 3d 529

Stacey v. Peed

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided October 4, 2013

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 2013-10-04

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently April 2019

1 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2013-10-04

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

SHAW, Justice

¶1(concurring in part and concurring in the result).

¶2I concur to reverse the judgment on the breaeh-of-contract claim and the money-lent claim, and I concur to affirm the judgment on the account-stated claim. As to the “gift” issue discussed in Part IV, I *535express no opinion. I note that there is nothing in the record to indicate that the trial court could have entered a summary judgment in favor of Peed based upon a theory that the transfer was a gift.

/142/so3d/529 · .json · Public domain