Perry & Williams, Inc. v. William Earl Mitchell
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 3/14/2008 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 2290649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter. ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2007-2008 _________________________ 2050508 _________________________ Perry & Williams, Inc. v. William Earl Mitchell Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court (CV-98-312) After Remand from the Alabama Supreme Court PITTMAN, Judge. The Alabama Supreme Court has affirmed this court's judgment of November 17, 2006, insofar as it held that Perry & Williams, Inc., had no duty to provide William Earl Mitchell 2050508 a lift device to place a motorized scooter on his vehicle and has reversed this court's judgment insofar as it held that Perry & Williams had no duty to provide Mitchell a motorized scooter. See Ex parte Mitchell, [Ms. 1060356, January 25, 2008] ___ So. 2d ___ (Ala. 2008). In compliance with the Alabama Supreme Court's opinion, that portion of the trial court's judgment requiring Perry & Williams to provide Mitchell a motorized scooter is reversed; however, consistent with the opinion of the Alabama Supreme Court, and at that court's express direction, the cause is remanded "for the trial court whether to conduct Mitchell is further entitled proceedings to a to scooter, determine as 'other apparatus,' pursuant to the standard set forth" in Ex parte Mitchell. ___ So. 2d at ___. We further note that "the trial court is free to exercise its discretion and conduct further proceedings, including taking additional evidence, in making its determination." Id. REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED. Thompson, P.J., and Bryan, concur. 2 Thomas, and Moore, JJ.,
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
