Cases Released March 28, 2008

From the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals:

J.W. v. N.K.M.

J.W.J., Jr. v. P.K.R. and P.H.R.

E.S.R., Jr. v. Madison County Department of Human Resources

Brooks v. Brooks

Jacks v. Taylor

 

From the Supreme Court of Alabama:

Ex parte Flowers, individually and d/b/a Roshell’s Cafe and Deli, In re: Sanders v. Flowers

State of Alabama v. Lorillard Tobacco Company, Inc., et al.

Pierce v. American General Finance, Inc.

Ex parte State of Alabama, In re: Warren v. State of Alabama

Yeager v. Lucy et al.

Alabama Supreme Court and Court of Civil Appeals to hear oral arguments in Birmingham

On April 17, 2008, the Alabama Supreme Court and the Court of Civil Appeals will hear oral arguments in Birmingham, Alabama.  The arguments will be held from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon at the Wright Center at Samford University, 800 Lakeshore Drive, Birmingham, Alabama 35229.  The arguments are free and open to the public, so it is a great opportunity to see our appellate courts in action. 

United States Supreme Court Hears Alabama Voting Rights Case

The United States Supreme Court heard oral argument on a case arising out of Alabama involving voting rights.  The dispute centers around the authority of the Governor to appoint someone to a vacant seat on a County Commission rather than have a special election.  Click the links for articles on this case:

"High Court Tackles Ala. Voting Case" – AP

"Supreme Court hears Alabama appeal" – Montgomery Advertiser

 

Alabama Supreme Court can only review grounds accepted on certiorari

The Alabama Supreme Court quashed a writ of certiorari in Ex parte State of Alabama Dept. of Revenue, [Ms. 1061766] (Ala. March 21, 2008) because it could not reach the issue presented.  On certiorari, the State of Alabama Department of Revenue filed a petition for writ of certiorari asking the Supreme Court to reverse a prior case involving the same parties.  The Court of Civil Appeals’ opinion, however, was based on the doctrine of collateral estoppel.  The Supreme Court found that the State did not challenge that finding in its cert petition.  Because the issue of collateral estoppel would have to be addressed before reaching the issue of whether to overrule the prior case, and because the State did not seek review if the collateral estoppel issue, the Court held that it could not reach the issue presented in the cert petition and quashed the writ.

In a special concurrence, Justice See noted that the Alabama Supreme Court had the authority to issue a writ of certiorari ex mero motu.  Therefore, in his opinion, quashing the writ was not required, but was appropriate.

Untimely notice of appeal requires dismissal of appeal

The rule that an untimely appeal must be dismissed required the dismissal of the appeal of a paternity action in J.B.C. v. P.H.R, [Ms. 2061131] (March 21, 2008).  In an action to determine paternity, an appeal mustbe filed within 14 days of the order in issue; however, in this case, the putative father filed his appeal 21 days after the order.  Thus, the Court of Civil Appeals dismissed the appeal as untimely.

Cases Released on March 21, 2008

From the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals:

Posey v. Mollohan

Fuller v. Fuller

A.D.B.H. v. Houston County Department of Human Resources

Hubbard v. Bentley

Browning v. Palmer

Tonini and State Insurance Company v. Campagna

Brunner v. Ormsby

Calera Animal Hospital v. Mike Mooney Construction

Parris v. Prison Health Services, Inc., Hobbs, and Hunt

Kimberly-Clark Corp. and Kimberly-Clark Wordwide, Inc. v. Alabama Department of Revenue

J.B.C. v. P.H.R. and H.R.

Willis v. Coe, et al.

Morrison, M.D. v. Gurley, M.D.

From the Alabama Supreme Court:

Boyd v. State of Alabama

Wadley v. St. Vincent’s Hospital, et al.

State of Alabama Department of Revenue v. Hoover, Inc.

 

Continue reading

Challenge of Arbitration Award Too Late

The Alabama Supreme Court reversed an order vacating an arbitration award because the argument that the defendant offered in support of his motion to vacate came too late. To avoid the arbitration award, the defendant submitted that he should not have been compelled to arbitrate because he was not a party to the arbitration agreement. The Court held that the defendant waived the argument; he should have raised it in an ARAP 4(d) appeal from the trial court order that directed the claims against him to arbitration. Jenks v. Harris, No. 1050686 (March 14, 2008).

Continue reading