Case ID: so2d_741/html/0406-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. HOUSTON, Justice", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Samie Joe PEELEGRINE, Sr. v. Fr. William John SULLIVAN. Samie Joe Peelegrine, Sr. v. Bishop David E. Foley.
    1971882 and 1980276.
    Supreme Court of Alabama.
    Sept. 10, 1999.
    William W. Smith of Hogan, Smith & Alspaugh, P.C., Birmingham, for appellant.
    William W. Conwell of Johnston & Con-well, L.L.C., Birmingham, for appellee Fr. William John Sullivan.
    George M. Van Tassel, Jr., and Michael H. Gregory of Sadler, Sullivan, Sharp & Van Tassel, P.C., Birmingham, for appellee Bishop David E. Foley.
   PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff appeals from summary judgments for the defendants in a lawsuit alleging counseling malpractice; alienation of affections; breach of contract; the tort of outrage; vicarious liability; negligent hiring, supervision, and retention; fraud; intentional infliction of emotional distress; breach of fiduciary duty; and loss of consortium. Because our study of the record on appeal discloses no genuine issue of material fact, and because the facts as shown by that record entitle the defendants to judgments as a matter of law, we affirm the summary judgments. Rule 56(c), Ala.R.Civ.P.

AFFIRMED.

HOOPER, C.J., and COOK, SEE, LYONS, BROWN, and JOHNSTONE, JJ., concur.

MADDOX and HOUSTON, JJ., concur specially.

HOUSTON, Justice

(concurring specially).

I adopt Justice Maddox’s special concurrence in Handley v. Richards, 518 So.2d 682 (Ala.1987).

MADDOX, J., concurs.