Alabama Supreme Court clarifies scope of post-judgment discovery in connection with review of punitive damages

In Ex parte Vulcan Materials, [Ms. 1051184] (Ala. April 25, 2008) , the Alabama Supreme Court clarified the allowable scope of post judgment discovery in connection with a review of punitive damages, including the scope of discovery regarding a defendant’s financial position.  The decision also includes interesting concurrences by Justice Murdock and Chief Justice Cobb.  

Continue reading

Cases Released on April 25, 2008

From the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals:

2061121 – Walton v. Beverly Enterprises-Alabama, Inc., d/b/a Beverly-Meadowood Health & Rehabilitation, and Caroyln Disher

From the Alabama Supreme Court:

1070606 – Ex Parte Margaret Dabbs, Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Civil Appeals, (In re: Margaret Dabbs v. SRE, Inc. d/b/a Southern Real Estate)

1070376 – Ex Parte Micheal Booker, Petiton for Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals, (In re: Micheal Booker v. State of Alabama)

1061377 – Ex Parte Matthew Kennedy, Charles Ward, and Marty Griffin, Petition for Writ of Mandamus, (In re: Burl Thompson, executor of the estate of Joseph James "Pete" Thompson, deceased v. Matthew Kennedy, Charles Ward, and Marty Griffin)

1060739 – Classroomdirect.com, LLC v. Draphix, LLC, f/k/a Re-Print/Draphix, LLC

1060734 – Ex Parte Norfolk Southern Railway Company, Norfolk Southern Corporation and John D. Summers, Petition for Writ of Mandamus, (In re: Dexter A. Grandison v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company, et al.)

1051184 – Ex Parte Vulcan Materials Company Petition for Writ of Mandamus, (In re: James Blizzard d/b/a Blizzard Construction Company and Hollywood Materials v. Jeffrey Chandler and Vulcan Materials Company)

1041765 – Welch v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.

Use Common Law Certiorari for Review of Personnel Board Decision

“’The proper method of reviewing circuit court decisions involving appeals from the Jefferson County Personnel Board is by common-law petition for writ of certiorari.’ Ex parte Personnel Board of Jefferson County, 513 1029, 1031 (Ala. Civ. App. 1987). ‘Review of the writ of certiorari in this court is limited to consideration of the proper application of the law by the circuit court and whether that court’s decision is supported by the legal evidence.’ Copeland v. Personnel Board of Jefferson County, 498 So. 2d 854, 855 (Ala. Civ. App. 1986).’” Ex parte City of Birmingham, No. 2070068 (Ala. Civ. App. April 18, 2008).

Mandamus Proper to Review Fictitious Party Issue

In Ex parte Nationwide Ins. Co., No. 1061708 (Ala. April 18, 2008), the Alabama Supreme Court confirmed that, “an appeal is not an adequate remedy to review the defense, ‘[i]n a narrow class of cases involving fictitious parties and the relation-back doctrine’ that a claim is barred by the statute of limitations.” (quoting Ex Parte Jackson, 780 So. 2d 681, 684 (Ala. 2000)).

Continue reading

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Moot

The concept of mootness applies to a writ of mandamus. “A case is moot when there is no real controversy and it seeks to determine an abstract question which does not rest on existing facts or rights. . . . This same principle holds with respect to petitions for writ of mandamus.” Ex parte Novartis Phar. Corp., No. 1070312 (Ala. April 18, 2008)(emphasis supplied).

Continue reading

Cases Released April 18, 2008

From the Supreme Court of Alabama:

Ex parte Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, In re: Alabama Medicaid Pharmaceutical Average Wholesale Price Litigation

White Sands Group, L.L.C., Valentine, and Rolison v. PRS II, LLC, et al.

Chris Myers Pontiac-GMC, Inc., d/b/a Chris Myers Automotive v. Perot

Ex parte Nationwide Insurance Company, In re: Alexander v. Herron et al.

 

From the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals:

Roberts v. University of Alabama Hospital

Ex parte City of Birmingham, In re: Holmes v. City of Birmingham

Broadnax v. Griswold

D.L.L. II v. B.J. and R.S.J.

M.S. v. D.A.P.

Swafford v. Norton

Pipeline Technic, L.L.C. v. Mason