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.
Monthly Archives: April 2008
“Alabama Supreme Court releases data: Fewer cases, decisions take longer”
The Birmingham News has an interesting article about recent statistics on the caseload at the Alabama Supreme Court. Click the link for the article entitled "Alabama Supreme Court releases data: Fewer cases, decisions take longer."
Cases Released on April 25, 2008
From the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals:
From the Alabama Supreme Court:
1060739 – Classroomdirect.com, LLC v. Draphix, LLC, f/k/a Re-Print/Draphix, LLC
Law of the Case Doctrine Not Obligatory
In deciding whether to apply the law of the case doctrine in a case that has been appealed multiple times, the appellate court should consider the purpose of the rule and the circumstances surrounding the initial appellate decision in the case. Swafford v. Norton, No. 2060722 (Ala. Civ. App. April 18, 2008).
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)).
Presumption of Correctness for Mixed Questions of Law and Fact
In Roberts v. Uni. of Alabama Hospital, No. 2070256 (Ala. Civ. App. April 18, 2008), a hospital lien action, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals held that, “[a]ppellate courts properly apply a presumption of correctness to factual determinations of trial courts, even in the context of mixed questions of law and fact.”
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).
Cases Released April 18, 2008
From the Supreme Court of Alabama:
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
“Students Watch the Alabama Supreme Court in Action”
The Alabama Supreme Court and the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals heard oral arguments today at Samford University in Birmingham. Here is a link to an article about the arguments entitled "Students Watch the Alabama Supreme Court in Action" from myfoxal.com.