Opinion ID: 1620423
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Jury Instruction on Damages for Mental Anguish

Text: The Goolesbys' final argument is that the trial court erred by instructing the jury that it could not consider what occurred between the sheriff's deputies and Tony and Buddy Goolesby in determining whether the Goolesbys were entitled to mental-anguish damages on their breach-of-contract counterclaim; they ask the Court to determine whether the trial court's instruction was error, but only if this case is to be remanded for a new trial. Because the Goolesbys do not argue that the alleged error entitles them to relief from an existing judgment and because it is impossible to predict whether (or under what circumstances) the trial court will give the same instruction at a new trial, this argument asks for an advisory opinion, which the Court declines to issue. See Case v. Alabama State Bar, 939 So.2d 881, 885 (Ala.2006)(it is well established that the Alabama courts do not render purely advisory opinions).