Cases Released on December 19, 2008

From the Supreme Court of Alabama:

Ex Parte Governor Bob Riley and Robert L. Childree, comptroller of the State of Alabama Petition of Writ of Mandamus (In re: Joint Fiscal Committee of the Alabama legislature, et al. v. Governor Bob Riley and Comptroller Robert Childree)

From the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals:

Grelier v. Grelier, III / Grelier, III v. Grelier

Solomon Motor Company v. Earnest Dean

Starr, Sr. v. Wilson, et al.

Montgomery Board of Education v. Cederick Webb / Webb v. Montogomery Board of Education

Weeks v. Weeks

Payne v. Shelby County Commission and Shelby County Planning Commission

Greater Mobile Chrysler-Jeep, Inc. v. Charles Atterbury

J.L.M. v. S.A.K.

Starr, Sr. v. Wilson, et al.

Alabama Department of Revenue v. Jim Beam Brands Company, Inc.

Tidwell v. Pritchett-Moore, Inc., and Tim Rutledge

Holland v. Amelia Peason, in her official capacity as president og Southern Union State Community College

T.B. v. DeKalb County Department of Human Resources and J.N. and M.N.

Alabama Supreme Court Holds that Exxon is Not Liable For Post-Judgment Interest on Declaratory Judgment Because the Judgment Was Not a Money Judgment

In Exxon Mobil Corp. v. State Dep’t. of Conservation and Natural Res., No. 1070716, released December 12, 2008, the Alabama Supreme Court held that a judgment ordering Exxon to compute royalties “according to the leases as interpreted by the jury,” was not a money judgment and therefore not subject to postjudgment interest.  


Continue reading

Cases Released December 12, 2008

From the Supreme Court of Alabama:

Brown v. ABUS Kransysteme GmbH

Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation f/k/a Exxon Corporation

Southland Bank v. A&A Drywall Supply Company, Inc.

Alabama Department of Corrections v. Montgomery County Commission


From the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals:

Johnson v. Hall

McAfee v. Garrison

Cambria, Inc. v. Worldwide Custom Materials, Inc.

Drees v. Turner

Nelson v. Estate of Nelson

M.M. v. D.P.

Persons v. Persons

T.P. v. T.J.H.

Child Day Care Association v. Christesen

Ball Healthcare-Jefferson, Inc., et al. v. Alabama Medicaid Agency

MasterBrand Cabinets, Inc., f/k/a NHB Industries, Inc. v. Ruggs

Failure to Attach Relevant Documents to Mandums Petition Leads to Denial

In Ex parte Allianz Ins. Co. of North America, [Ms. 1070114] (Ala. Dec. 5, 2008), the Court demonstrated the importance of attaching all necessary documents to a petition for writ of mandamus.  The petitioners sought a writ of mandmus to have an order compelling discovery reversed.  However, the petitioners did not attach to th epetition a copy of its response to the motion to compel or a copy of its motion for protective order.  Because the petitioners did not show that they made the arguments to the trial court, and because they failed to present all necessary parts of the record to the Court, the petition was denied.

Claims “Too Intertwined” For 54(b) Certification

Counterclaims could not be certified as final under Rule 54(b), and thus made appealable, where the circuit court had not yet resolved the plaintiff’s “closely intertwined” claims. The 54(b) certification was held improper and the appeal dismissed. Gregory v. Ferguson, No. 2070576 (Ala. Civ. App. Dec. 5, 2008).

Continue reading