Opinion

Hill v. State

  • 237 Ala. 539
  • 187 So. 873
  • 1939 Ala. LEXIS 259
Court
Supreme Court of Alabama
Filed
Apr 6, 1939
Status
Published
Author
Brown
On the bench
Anderson, Brown, Knigpit, Thomas
Cited by
2 cases
Authority
More cited than 54.7%

rejecting promissory estoppel claim because the promise “was not definite but, on the contrary, was entirely indefinite as to terms and time.”

How later courts described this case

  • rejecting promissory estoppel claim because the promise “was not definite but, on the contrary, was entirely indefinite as to terms and time.”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

BROWN, Justice.

The petition seeks to review the Court of Appeals on a conclusion of fact and the application of the law thereto.

As repeatedly ruled, this is beyond the limit of review by the common-law writ of certiorari. Postal Tel.-Cable Co. v. Minderhout, 195 Ala. 420 , 71 So. 91 .

The writ is therefore denied.

ANDERSON, C. J., and THOMAS and KNIGPIT, JJ., concur.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.