Bell v. Vanlandingham
Alabama Supreme Court
633 So. 2d 454 (1994)
- Written by Mary Phelan D'Isa, JD
Facts
Hollis and Helen Bell (plaintiffs) brought an Alabama state court medical malpractice action against Dr. Vanlandingham (defendant). After the jury returned a verdict for the doctor, the Bells moved for a new trial, alleging that the trial judge erred by denying the Bells’ motion to excuse three jurors for cause. The Bells argued that the first juror should have been excused for cause because he was a pastor, and many members of his congregation were the doctor’s patients and he testified that he might feel a little uncomfortable sitting on the jury. The second juror, the Bells argued, had been a prior patient of the doctor and he knew the Bells and testified that because he knew both parties, he did not want to be involved. The Bells argued that the third juror should have been excused because he was a current patient of the doctor and her family’s physician and she testified that she would feel awkward sitting on the jury. The trial court overruled the Bells’ motion for new trial and the Bells appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ingram, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 781,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
