From the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals:
From the Alabama Supreme Court:
James E. Laster, Jr., a minor who sues by and through his parents and next friends, James E. Laster, Sr., and Gloria Laster, et al. v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company, Inc., and the Alabama Great Railway Company
Ex Parte David G. Morrison, M.D. Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Court of CIvil Appeals (In re: David G. Morrison, M.D. v. Jerry N. Gurley, M.D., in his capacity as chairman of the Medical Licensure Commission of Alabama)
In Championcomm.net of Tuscaloosa, Inc. v. Morton, [Ms. 1070488] (Jan. 9, 2009), the Alabama Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of an arbitration award because there was no "final judgment." Ala. Code 6-6-15 sets out the procedure by which an arbitration award may be appealed, and it states that "the clerk or register shall enter the [arbitration] award as the judgment of the court." In this case, although the arbitration award was filed with the court, it was never "entered" by the clerk as a judgment. Therefore, because there was no final judgment which had been entered, the Supreme Cout lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, and the appeal was dismissed.
Although it was decided in the criminal law context, the case Ex parte King, [Ms. 1071540] (Ala. Jan. 9, 2009), may be instructive in civil cases. In King, the Alabama Supreme Court held that mandamus review of a pre-trial ruling on a motion in limine regarding evidence is not approrpiate. The Court noted that there were no published opinions in Alabama covering this scenario, but, well settled propositions show that such a review is not allowed. Evidentiary rulings are reviewed to determine whether a trial court exceeded its discretion. These types of rulings are not approrpiate for mandamus review because "circumstances involving alleged errors of judgment, or errors in the exercise of judicial discretion, [do] not constitute grounds for invoking supervisory mandamus." Slip Op. p. 6, quoting Ex parte Nice, 407 So. 2d 874, 882 (Ala. 1981).
In Ex parte AIG Baker Orange Beach Wharf, [Ms. 1071345] (Ala. Jan. 9, 2009), the Alabama Supreme Court held than an order transferring a case based on forum non conveniens is only proper where venue is proper in the original county. If venue is improper in the original county, then a transfer based on forum non conveniens is inappropriate, and the case would have to be sent back to the original county, even though venue is not proper there.