438 So. 2d 310 | Ala. Civ. App. | 1983
After Remand from Alabama Supreme Court.
On June 3, 1983 the Alabama Supreme Court,
In its decision the supreme court indicated that Klingler could respond "to the subpoena by showing that he is not engaged in business or showing some other valid reason why he cannot produce the information sought." Should Klingler refuse to respond as suggested, he would be liable for contempt.
Pursuant to the decision of the supreme court, that aspect of the trial court's judgment holding Klingler in contempt is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for it to permit Klingler to answer the subpoena in the manner indicated by the supreme court. Again, as indicated by the supreme court, refusal to satisfactorily answer the subpoena as suggested will authorize the trial court to hold Klingler in contempt.
The trial court's judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded with instructions. *311
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
WRIGHT, P.J., and HOLMES, J., concur.