From the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals:
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company v. Muilenburg
From the Alabama Supreme Court:
Springhill Hospitals, Inc., d/b/a Springhill Memorial Hospital v. Larrimore
Ex parte Safeway Insurance Company of Alabama, Inc., In re: Galvin v. Monday
In Goetsch v. Goetsch, [Ms. 2060714] (Ala. Civ. App. Feb. 22, 2008), the Court of Civil Appeals noted the general rule regarding an appellate court’s ability to take judical notice of prior appellate proceedings: "This Court takes judicial notice or has judicial knowledge of contents of it [sic] records with reference to its previous consideration of litigation presently before it." Slip. Op. p. 19, n.1 (quoting Morrow v. Gibson, 827 So. 2d 756, 762 (Ala. 2002)).
On February 22, 2008, the Supreme Court denied rehearing but issued a modified opinion in the case Hilb, Rogal & Hamilton Co. v. Werner Beiersdoerfer, [Ms. 1060522] (Ala. Feb. 22, 2008) , originally released on December 14, 2007. The Supreme Court reaffirmed its holding that post-judgment motions which have become mooted are not subject to denial by operation of Rule 59.1. The court also concluded, in a matter of first impression, that a party who fails to raise its remittitur arguments on appeal from the grant of a motion for a new trial in its favor does not waive those arguments.
Click here for a link to our earlier coverage of this opinion.
In V.W. v. G.W., [Ms 2060902] (Ala. Civ. App. Feb. 22, 2008) , the Court of Civil Appeals commented on the adequacy of citation of authority in a brief’s argument, and held that citation to a statute was sufficient to satisfy Ala. R. App. P. 28(a)(10).
From the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals:
Tyler v. Tyler
Goetsch v. Goetsch
Clement v. Spann
Feria v. Soto
V.W. v. G.W.
From the Alabama Supreme Court:
Hilb, Rogal & Hamilton Co. v. Werner Beiersdoefer
Wood v. Booth
Garlington v. State of Alabama
McNabb v. State of Alabama
A notice of appeal is not “filed” and effective if it is only faxed to the court clerk. L.M. v. Shelby County Dept. of Human Resources, No. 2060860 (Ala. Civ. App. Feb. 15, 2008). The Court of Civil Appeals ruled that a faxed notice of appeal, that was otherwise timely, did not invoke its jurisdiction, and dismissed the appeal.
The trial court “bifurcated” and decided one issue in a property line dispute, but reserved other issues for later decision. This did not constitute a final judgment from which an appeal would lie. The defendants’ attempt to gain review of the partial order was dismissed. Day v. Davis, No. 2060787 (Ala. Civ. App. Feb. 15, 2008).
After obtaining two effective post-judgment extensions under Rule 59.1, a husband failed to appeal within 42 days of the circuit court’s order, and saw his appeal dismissed as untimely. Smith v. Smith, No. 2061150 (Ala. Civ. App. Feb. 15, 2008).
From the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals:
Weinrib, in his official capacity as Jefferson County Tax Assessor v. Wolter
Hawk v. Roger Watts Insurance Agency et al.
L.M. v. Shelby County Department of Human Resources
DuBose Construction Company, L.L.C. v. Simmons
James River Corporation v. Bolton
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company v. Cranford
From the Supreme Court of Alabama:
Ex parte Folks, In re: Folks v. Tuscaloosa County Credit Union
Ex parte Citizens State Bank, In re: McGee v. Citizens State Bank
Ex parte Lee, In re: Lee v. State of Alabama
Ex parte Lindsey, In re: City of Decatur v. Lindsey
Parrett Trucking, Inc. v. Telecom Solutions, Inc.
Ex parte Kane and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, In re: Odom v. Kane and State Farm
Ex parte State of Alabama, In re: Martinez v. State of Alabama
In an opinion that addresses a variety of Title
[T]he mischief shotgun pleadings causes undermines the public’s respect for the courts – the ability of the courts to process efficiently, economically, and fairly the business placed before them. At an increasing rate, civil litigants are avoiding the federal district courts; they go elsewhere, to other fora, for the resolution of their disputes, especially complicated commercial disputes. The federal courts’ civil caseloads reflect this. . . . This has a negative effect on the development of the rule of law in the federal courts. When issues that ought to be presented to the courts for clarification, and to stabilize the rule of law, are removed to non-judicial fora for resolution, the public bears the cost . . .
Davis et al. v. Coca-Cola Bottling