Stoor v. Turner

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided December 11, 1998

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1998-12-11

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently February 2015

1 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““I do not wish to be understood to embrace the holding of Ex parte Anderson, 644 So.2d 961, 965 (Ala.1994). Rule 27 does not provide a vehicle for pre-action discovery to determine whether a cause of action exists. Instead, as the Committee Comments to Rule 27 state, that rule allows only pre-action discovery ‘under Rules 34 and 35 for the purpose of perpetuating evidence pursuant to those rules.’ (Emphasis added.)””

quoted by 1 later decision, including D.R. Horton, Inc.—Birmingham v. Ferrari

Relies on Ex Parte Anderson

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1998-12-11

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

LYONS, Justice

¶1(concurring in part and dissenting in part as to the rationale; and concurring in the result).

¶2I agree that Rule 27, Ala. R. Civ. P., applies to this proceeding. However, I do not wish to be understood to embrace the holding of Ex parte Anderson, 644 So.2d 961, 965 (Ala.1994). Rule 27 does not provide a vehicle for pre-action discovery to determine whether a cause of action exists. Instead, as the Committee Comments to Rule 27 state, that rule allows only pre-action discovery “under Rules 34 and 35 for the purpose of perpetuating evidence pursuant to those rules.” (Emphasis added.) Notwithstanding that limitation to Rule 27, I concur in the result. Ms. Stoor seeks to perpetuate testimony under Rule 35, a procedure for which Rule 27 specifically provides.