From the Supreme Court of Alabama:
From the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals:
Alabama Department of Revenue v. Harris
Chaney, et al. v. Ala West-AL, LLC
Monthly Archives: December 2008
Various Notes From Decisions of December 19, 2008
No decision released on December 19, 2008 turned centrally on a question of post-judgment or appellate law. Consequently, no one case seemed worth summarizing here. Several familiar points of appellate law did arise in these cases, though. Hoping that readers will find it useful, we recount these points briefly.
Cases Released on December 19, 2008
From the Supreme Court of Alabama:
From the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals:
Grelier v. Grelier, III / Grelier, III v. Grelier
Solomon Motor Company v. Earnest Dean
Montgomery Board of Education v. Cederick Webb / Webb v. Montogomery Board of Education
Payne v. Shelby County Commission and Shelby County Planning Commission
Greater Mobile Chrysler-Jeep, Inc. v. Charles Atterbury
Alabama Department of Revenue v. Jim Beam Brands Company, Inc.
Tidwell v. Pritchett-Moore, Inc., and Tim Rutledge
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.
The Ninety-Day Rule Strikes Again: Untimely Appeal Dismissed
Court of Civil Appeals Reverses Trial Court’s Setting Aside of a Domesticated Default Judgment Pursuant to Rule 60(b)
In Cambria v. Worldwide Custom Materials, Inc., No. 2070855, released by the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals, the court reversed the trial court’s order setting aside a domesticated default judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b).
Cases Released December 12, 2008
From the Supreme Court of Alabama:
Brown v. ABUS Kransysteme GmbH
Southland Bank v. A&A Drywall Supply Company, Inc.
Alabama Department of Corrections v. Montgomery County Commission
From the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals:
Cambria, Inc. v. Worldwide Custom Materials, Inc.
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).
“Separated” Claim Did Not Yield Final Judgment
A trial court did not enter a final judgment by disposing of a claim that had been separated for trial under Rule 42(b) where another claim remained pending. Hamilton v. CSC Distribution, Inc., No. 2070813 (Ala. Civ. App. Dec. 5, 2008).