Cases Released August 29, 2008

From the Supreme Court of Alabama:

Ex parte Griffin, Petition for Writ of Mandamus; In re: Howard v. Mac Equipment Company, Inc., et al.

Bon Aventure, L.L.C., and Staggers v. Craig Dyas L.L.C. and Dyas

Carlton v. Hollon

 

From the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals:

Butler v. Phillips

Madison County Board of Education v. Wilson, Appeal from Hearing Officer’s Decision

Greenwood v. Greenwood

Hoegh v. Burton

Ex parte C&D Logging, Petition for Writ of Mandamus; In re: Mobley v. C&D Logging

Alabama State Personnel Board and Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources v. Garner

Serio v. Serio, et al.

Turner v. Newsom and University Diagnostics, P.C.

Hobbs v. Heisey

Parker v. Parker

Combs v. Combs

Ratliff v. Ratliff

Frederick v. Wallis

Claim for double-compensation penalty in workers’ compensation is not subject to Rule 59

The Supreme Court answered the question of first impression of whether a claim for the double- compensation penalty of Ala. Code 25-5-8(e) is subject to the time restrictions of Rule 59.  The Court held that, because it is a penalty distinct from the underlying judgment,  it is not.  Therefore, a request for the double-compensation penalty made more than 30 days after the entry of judgment is timely.  Ex parte Ruggs, [Ms. 1061379] (Ala. Aug. 22, 2008).

Cases Released August 22, 2008

From the Supreme Court of Alabama:

Ex parte McKenzie Oil Company, Inc. and Ex parte Heathcock, Petitions for Writ of Mandamus; In re: Franklin v. Heathcock and McKenzie Oil Company, Inc.

Ex parte Tahsin Industrial Corporation, U.S.A., Petition for Writ of Mandamus; In re: Clanton v. Tahsin Industrial Corporation, U.S.A.

Ex parte Jackson Board of Education, Petition for Writ of Mandamus; IN re: Congleton v. Jackson County Board of Education, et al.

Harrison v. The Alabama Forever Wild Land Trust

Ex parte J.C. Duke & Associates, Inc., Petition for Writ of Mandamus; In re: DelZak Builders, Inc. v. J.C. Duke & Associates, Inc. and Arch Insurance Company

Portofino Seaport Village, LLC v. Welch and Hawkins-Cobb, Inc.

Horn v. Brown

Ex parte Ruggs, Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Civil Appeals; In re: MasterBrand Cabinets, Inc., f/k/a NHB Industries, Inc. v. Ruggs

Truss v. Chappell

 

From the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals:

Djibrine v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and Franz

Furin, et al. v. City of Huntsville

Gatlin v. Joiner, et al.

IEC Arab Alabama, Inc. v. City of Arab and Alabama Department of Revenue

Equipment Sales Corporation v. Gwin

Mahoney v. Loma Alta Property Owners Association, Inc.

Duncan and Air Flow Awning Company, Inc. v. City of Montgomery, et al.

Reaction to United States Supreme Court’s Decision in Hall Street

This spring, in Hall Street Associates, LLC v. Mattel, the United States Supreme Court held that the grounds enumerated in the Federal Arbitration Act are the exclusive grounds for vacating, modifying, or correcting an arbitratin award and cannot be expanded, even by agreement of the parties.  To read the reactions that some legal commentators have had to the decision, click here or here