This week, the Alabama Supreme Court pointed out that the do novo standard that applies to review of a judgment as a matter of law is “materially indistinguishable” from the de novo standard of review the Court employs when it reviews an appeal from a summary judgment. Glass v. Birmingham Southern Railroad Co., No. 1050831 (Ala. Sept. 28, 2007)(FELA action). The Court also, “reviews de novo a trial court’s interpretation of a statute, because only a question of law is presented.” Alfa v. City of Mobile, No. 1051747 (Sept. 28, 2007)(action to collect license tax). Finally, the Court explained that when it reviews a judgment concerning a challenge to the validity of a settlement agreement, the Court makes a de novo review of the trial court’s decision if the trial court did not receive ore tenus evidence. Billy Barnes Enterprises, Inc. v. Williams,.No. 1090083 (Ala. Sept. 28, 2007); See also, Sierra Club v. TVA, No. 06-10729 (11th Cir. Oct. 4, 2007)(in Clean Water Act opinion, court explained that, “[w]e review de novo the district court’s orders granting TVA’s motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, upholding them if there are no genuine issues of material fact and if TVA is entitled to judgment as a matter of law”).
Monthly Archives: September 2007
Cases Released September 28, 2007
From the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals:
Ex parte Montgomery County Department of Human Resources, et al. (In re: Matters of M.K. and C.K.)
Ex parte Montgomery County Department of Human Resources, et al. (In re: Matter L.H.)
SAAD’s Healthcare Services, Inc. v. Meinhardt
Alabama State Personnel Board v. Carson
From the Alabama Supreme Court:
Collins v. Alabama Department of Corrections
Ex parte Young (In re: Young v. State of Alabama)
Ex parte State of Alabama (In Re: Nickens v. State of Alabama)
Alfa Insurance Company v. City of Mobile
Henderson Excavating Company, Inc. v. Alabama Department of Transportation
Allen, as commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections v. Barbour County, et al.
Glass v. Birmingham Southern Railroad Company
Billy Barnes Enterprises, Inc. v. Williams
Equity Saves Late Appeal; Condemnation Order “Made” When Signed
In a first decision under Ala. Code § 18-1A-283, the Alabama Supreme Court held that a condemnation order was “made” when signed, and not when it was later “recorded in the probate minutes.” An appeal filed thirty-one days after the order was signed was therefore untimely. Given the confusing language used throughout the state’s Eminent Domain Code, however, and considering the facts of the case, equity would permit the late appeal to proceed. Ex parte State (In re Boutwell v. State), No. 1050299 (Ala. Sept. 21, 2007).
Interlocutory Appeal Dismissed Where Certified Issues Were Not in Dispute
Where the issues certified for interlocutory appeal (under Ala. R. App. P. 5) proved not to be in dispute, the Alabama Supreme Court decided that permission to appeal had been improvidently granted. Carfax, Inc. v. Browning, No. 1050291 (Ala. Sept. 21, 2007). The Court thus dismissed the appeal.
Cases Released September 21, 2007
From the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals:
Walker v. Flagstar Enterprises, Inc.
AmSouth Bank, N.A. v. British West Florida, L.L.C., et al.
CVS Corporation, Inc. v. Smith
From the Alabama Supreme Court:
Jones Food Company, Inc. v. Shipman
Ex parte State of Alabama, In re: Boutwell v. State of Alabama
Ex parte Crews, In re: Crews v. State of Alabama
Burleson v. RSR Group Florida, Inc.
Ex parte Pearson, In re: Pearson v. State of Alabama
Ex parte Gunn, In re: Gunn v. State of Alabama
Method and Scope of Review of an Order Denying a Motion to Transfer Venue
In Ex parte Smiths Water and Sewer Authority, No. 1050329 (Ala. Sept. 14, 2007), the Alabama Supreme Court reiterated that "the proper method for obtaining a review of a denial of a motion for a change of venue in a civil action is to petition for the writ of mandamus." The court further restated the standard of review applicable to such rulings: "the scope of review is to determine if the trial court abused its discretion, i.e., whether it exercised its discretion in an arbitrary and capricious manner."
New Trial Ordered for Failure to Give Proposed Jury Charge
In Bailey v. Sawyer, No. 2050707 (Ala. Civ. App. Sep. 14), the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals ordered a new trial based on the trial court’s refusal to give the the plaintiffs’ proposed jury charge concerning undue influence on the testator.
“Alabama Supreme Court reduces $5.5 million verdict”
In an 80 page opinion, the Alabama Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the jury’s finding of liability, but remitted the verdict fromn $5.5 million to $3 million by a 5-4 majority. Mobile Infirmary Association v. Tyler, No. 104184 (Sept. 14, 2007). Click here for an article on this interesting opinion.
Cases Released on September 14, 2007
From the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals:
Ward v. Check Into Cash Alabama, LLC
Wright v. Hatley Health Care, Inc.
Rogers & Willard, Inc. v. Harwood
Atchison v. Boone Newspapers, Inc.
Vintage Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Hayes
From the Alabama Supreme Court:
Ex parte Kelly, In re: Kelly v. Kelly
Mobile Infirmary Association v. Tyler
Barry v. The Drennen Memorial Trust of Saint Mary’s Church, et al.
Ex parte Smiths Water and Sewer Authority
Nonattorney Parents May Not Represent Minor Child Pro Se
In Chambers v. Tibbs, No. 2060480 (Ala. Civ. App Sept, 7, 2007) , the Alabama Court of Appeals addressed the interesting question of whether nonattorney parents may represent a minor child pro se. The court held that they may not.