From the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals:
Mike Brooks Car World, Inc. v. Sudduth
McDaniel v. Helmerich & Payne International Drilling Company
Complete List of Cases from the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
From the Alabama Supreme Court:
From the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals:
Mike Brooks Car World, Inc. v. Sudduth
McDaniel v. Helmerich & Payne International Drilling Company
Complete List of Cases from the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
From the Alabama Supreme Court:
In two separate cases, the Court of Civil Appeals dismissed Rule 54(b) appeals from partial summary judgments. Certification under Rule 54(b) was improper in both cases because the appealed claims were too closely “intertwined” with claims that remained pending. Holman v. Sims, No. 2080809 (Ala. Civ. App. Jul. 16, 2010); Marshall Auto Painting & Collision, Inc. v. Peach Auto Painting & Collision, Inc., No. 2090090 (Ala. Civ. App. Jul. 16, 2010).
A divorce case prompted the Court of Civil Appeals to discuss several points about how a judgment is properly “rendered,” and when a judgment is final for purposes of supporting an appeal. Meek v. Meek, No. 2090026 (Ala. Civ. App. Jul. 16, 2010). Ultimately, because the trial court had not disposed of contempt motions, the appellate court held that it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.
From the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals:
Abernathy a/k/a Bush v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC
Alabama Department of Human Resources ex rel. Yancey v. Yancey
K.C. v. Jefferson County Department of Human Resources
Grace v. Standard Furniture Manufacturing Company, Inc.
W.A. Kendall & Company, Inc. v. Madison
Complete List of Cases from the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
From the Alabama Supreme Court:
Cheshire v. Putnam; Allstate Electric Company, Inc. v. Putnam
From the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals:
Marshall Auto Painting & Collision, Inc. v. Peach Auto Painting & Collision, Inc., et al.
Lingefelt et al. v. International Paper et al.
Complete List of Cases from the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
From the Alabama Supreme Court:
On June 30, 2010, the Alabama Supreme Court released a collection of opinions that address questions of first impression, present complex issues of appellate procedure, and review of a wide variety of topics. These cases are not easily summarized; too much is lost in trying to simplify the Court’s lengthy and thoughtful analysis. The following are worth reading: Hamm v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company, No. 1060935 (Ala. June 30, 2010)(discussing substitution of a bankruptcy trustee as the proper party in interest following a summary judgment against the bankruptcy debtor); Jones Express, Inc. v. Jackson, No. 1070066 (Ala. June 30, 2010)(discussing inconsistent verdicts, failure to appeal, and res judicata); and DGB, LLC, et al. v. Hinds et al., No. 1081767 (June 30, 2010)(holding that Ala. Code Section 6-2-3 tolls the statute of limitations not only for fraud causes of action but also for other tort causes of action that the defendant allegedly concealed from the plaintiff).
The Alabama Supreme Court rejected the appellees’ contention that an appeal from a default judgment in Progress Industries, Inc. v. Wilson, No. 1080578 (June 30, 2010), was untimely. The plaintiffs argued that the 42 day period for appeal under ARAP 4 started following the date on which the trial court entered an order assessing damages for the default judgment. The Court disagreed: "[a] judgment by default, rendered in advance against one of several defendants, is interlocutory until final disposition is made as to all the defendants. Ford Motor Credit Company v. Carmichael, Ala., 383 So.2d 539 (1980). Interlocutory orders and judgments are, therefore, not brought within the restrictive provisions of Rule 60(b), Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides for relief from final judgments. Instead, such orders are left within the plenary power of the court that rendered them to afford relief from them as justice requires." Progress Industries (quoting Hallman v. Marion Corp., 411 So.2d 130, 132 (Ala. 1982)). The Court held that the time for filing an appeal began to run from the date that the trial court certified the default judgment under ARCP 54(b), and the ARCP 55(c) motion to set aside the default that the defendant filed within 30 days of the 54(b) certifiation tolled the time for appeal until the the defendant’s 55(c) motion was denied by operation of law 90 days later pursuant to ARCP 59.1
In Ex parte Loma Alta Property Owners Association, Inc., No. 1081170 (Ala, June 30, 2010), the Alabama Supreme Court announced that the standard of review for an order denying a request for attorney fees under the Alabama Litigation Accountability Act is the same as the standard of review for an order granting a request for fees.
From the Alabama Supreme Court:
Ex parte Stutts; Petition for Writ of Mandamus (In re: Stutts v. Vacik, M.D., et al.)
Bon Harbor, LLC v. United Bank et al.
DGB, LLC, et al. v. Hinds et al.
Progress Industries, Inc. v. Wilson
Ex parte N.B.; Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Civil Appeals (In re: A.K. v. N.B.)
Jones Express, Inc. v. Jackson