Justia Alabama Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Alamo Title Company ("Alamo"), petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the Jefferson Circuit Court to vacate its order that denied Alamo's motion to dismiss an action filed against it by P.B. Surf, Ltd., and to enter an order dismissing the action for lack of personal jurisdiction. This dispute concerned the disbursement of proceeds from the sale of the an apartment complex in Houston, Texas. According to P.B. Surf, at the time the sale was scheduled to close in late 2011, a dispute arose over who was entitled to the net proceeds of the sale and where the net proceeds were to be deposited after the closing. After the closing, Alamo wired a portion of the net proceeds from the sale to a Birmingham Wells Fargo bank account pursuant to instructions from several of the sellers. P.B. Surf sued Alamo and several other defendants, alleging, among other things, conspiracy. Alamo moved the trial court, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2), Ala. R. Civ. P., to dismiss P.B. Surf's claims against it for lack of personal jurisdiction. In an amended complaint, P.B. Surf alleged that Alamo was partially responsible for what it alleged was the improper distribution of the proceeds among Defendants Guy Savage and Willem Noltes, and P.B. Surf. When the trial court denied its motion to dismiss, Alamo moved to reconsider which was also denied. Considering the minimum-contacts analysis in the context of specific personal jurisdiction, the Supreme Court concluded that the requisite minimum contacts for the trial court's exercise of specific jurisdiction over Alamo did not exist. Furthermore, the Court found that Alamo's contacts with Alabama were not continuous and systematic so as to support the trial court's exercise of general personal jurisdiction over Alamo. Therefore, the petition for a writ of mandamus established clear legal right to dismissal of P.B. Surf's complaint. View "In re: P. B. Surf, Ltd. v. Savage" on Justia Law

First Commercial Bank of Huntsville appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of various defendants on claims alleged by the Bank against those defendants. Because the summary judgment did not resolve all claims against all parties and because no part of the summary judgment was certified as final pursuant to Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as being from a nonfinal judgment. View "First Commercial Bank of Huntsville v. Nowlin, III." on Justia Law

Cocina Superior, LLC owned a restaurant in Birmingham that sold alcoholic beverages to the public. Cocina appealed two final assessments of the Jefferson County Department of Revenue. The assessments reflected that, for the years 2008-2010, Cocina owed money pursuant to the "Alabama Liquor Tax." The parties filed cross-motions for a summary judgment at the circuit court, agreeing that there were no disputed issues of fact and that the issue to be resolved was a question of law. Cocina argued that the applicable legislation called for the imposition of a tax on the gross receipts derived from the sale of "alcoholic beverages," but, it said, the Department's assessments were erroneously based upon the taxpayer's gross sales of mixed drinks that were composed of both alcoholic beverages and nonalcoholic mixing agents such as colas, sodas, and juices. Cocina asserted that its internal policy and procedure dictated that each mixed drink contain 1.25 ounces of alcohol, and, it maintained, the taxes were due only on the alcohol portion of the mixed drinks, exclusive of any nonalcoholic mixing agent. Cocina also argued that the Department's assessments denied it due process and equal protection of the law because its restaurant was a more upscale establishment with higher overhead expenses than many other facilities that sell alcoholic beverages and was therefore required to charge higher prices and, consequently, pay more taxes for the mixed drinks it sold. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the circuit court correctly held that the plain meaning of "alcoholic beverage" was a beverage containing alcohol, and that the Department's assessments did not violate the restaurant's right to due process or equal protection of the law. View "Cocina Superior, LLC v. Jefferson County Dept. of Revenue " on Justia Law

Plaintiff Nandean Sanders appealed a circuit court judgment in favor of Defendants E.I. Campbell, Averline Campbell and Jerry Lawrence. The parties owned adjoining properties in Dallas County. Sanders sought declarative and injunctive relief regarding a disputed strip of property that the the parties all claimed to own. Defendants counterclaimed to ask the court to establish a boundary line between Sanders and their property and to enjoin Sanders' "encroachment." Upon review of the circuit court record, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court's judgment was nonfinal, and therefore the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction for further consideration. The appeal was dismissed. View "Sanders v. E. I. Campbell et al. " on Justia Law

Defendants Jim Cody Beddingfield and his parents, Jimmy Larry and Rebecca M. Beddingfield appealed a judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of Plaintiff Trace Rex Linam, and appealed the trial court's order denying their postjudgment motion for a judgment as a matter of law ("JML") or for a new trial. The Beddingfields attended a 2004 family reunion and Fourth of July celebration at their house on Lake Guntersville. The boys (all cousins), including Cody Beddingfield, ventured off from their parents to a dock on the lake with bottle rockets and M-80s where they began lighting the fireworks and throwing them toward the water. One of the boys was hit in the eye by an errant bottle rocket. He would later lose sight in that eye. The injured boy sued his cousins and their parents for negligence, wantonness, assault, negligent and wanton supervision and negligent and wanton entrustment. In their challenge of the trial court's denial of JML, defendants argued the injured boy failed to present evidence sufficient to support many of his claims, particularly "negligent entrustment." Upon review, the Supreme Court found that no evidence was presented to support the negligent entrustment claim, and reversed the trial court with respect to only that claim. The Court affirmed the trial court in all other respects. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Beddingfield v. Linam " on Justia Law

Lowell and Deborah Fuller, and Ronald and Sheila M. Turner, appealed a circuit court judgment which found that, although the Town of Magnolia Springs held no riparian rights in and to the Magnolia River, the Town was entitled to construct improvements on the shores of the River and extending into the River for a boat launch, a boat dock, and/or a pier to be used in connection with Rock Landing, a public landing on the River, and that Rock Street, a public street in the Town that adjoined the lands owned by the Fullers and the Turners and that terminated at Rock Landing, could be used for temporary parking "for the purpose of launching a boat, kayak, canoe or other float at Rock Landing." The Town cross-appealed that part of the judgment that declared the Town was without authority to convert a portion of Rock Street from a public street to a parking facility and recreational area. On appeal, the Fullers and Turners argued that the remedy ordered by the circuit court was inconsistent with the underlying factual findings and conclusions of law. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed that the conclusions of law were indeed contradictory to the remedy the circuit court fashioned. The Court reversed the circuit court and remanded the case for the court to either revise its conclusions of law or the relief it ordered. Furthermore, because the Town's cross-appeal directly related to the issues raised on appeal, the Court ordered the cross-appeal to be reconsidered by the circuit court on remand. View "Fuller v. Town of Magnolia Springs " on Justia Law

The State through the Alabama Attorney General, sought a writ of mandamus to direct the presiding judge of the Macon Circuit Court to issue a search warrant as to "certain allegedly illegal gambling devices and related items" at a facility known as "Quincy's 777 Casino at Victoryland" in Shorter. The Supreme Court granted the State's petition and issued the writ under seal until the execution of the warrant. The execution having been accomplished, the Supreme Court removed the seal from this matter and in this opinion, addressed the reasons for issuing the writ. Upon careful consideration of the case law and statutes pertaining to this matter, the Supreme Court expounded on eight points of contention it had with the circuit court for denying the warrant. The Court concluded that the circuit court exceeded its discretion in denying the warrant, and as such, the State was entitled to an order directing the court to grant the warrant application. View "Ex parte State of Alabama (In re: Sealed Case)" on Justia Law

Anthony Haywood and Daniel Hall appealed a circuit court judgment that dismissed claims against Sheriff Dorothy "Jean Dot" Alexander, which were filed as part of a counterclaim in an action filed against Phillip Eugene Green, Haywood, and Hall by Scott Cotney, an administrator at the Clay County jail. In 2010, Cotney sued Green, a former correctional officer at the jail, and Haywood and Hall, former inmates at the jail, alleging defamation, slander, libel, invasion of privacy, negligence, and wantonness. The claims resulted from a report filed by Green, Haywood, and Hall with the Alabama Department of Corrections, claiming that Cotney had used his position as an administrator at the jail to sexually abuse and/or to assault Haywood and Hall while they were incarcerated in the jail. Haywood and Hall argued that the circuit court erred in granting Sheriff Alexander's motion to dismiss the claims against her. Specifically, they argued: (1) that their failure to identify Sheriff Alexander as a third-party defendant rather than a counterclaim defendant was not fatal to their complaint; (2) that Haywood and Hall were convicted felons, not pretrial detainees, during the relevant period and therefore had certain rights under the Eighth Amendment; (3) that Haywood's and Hall's rights pursuant to Fourth Amendment were violated because they were subject to "numerous acts of unlawful strip searches and bodily invasion perpetrated upon them by Cotney while he was the administrator of the [jail]"; (4) that Sheriff Alexander was not entitled to immunity under the State or Federal constitutions. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in part, reversed it in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings. Haywood and Hall did not demonstrate any error in the circuit court's decision to dismiss the federal claims against Sheriff Alexander in her official capacity or the state-law claims against her in both her official and individual capacities. Therefore, the circuit court's judgment was affirmed insofar as it dismissed those claims. However, at this stage of the proceedings Sheriff Alexander was not entitled to a dismissal of the federal claims against her in her individual capacity. View "Haywood v. Alexander " on Justia Law

Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company filed a declaratory-judgment action in the federal district court seeking, among other things, a determination of the status of a settlement agreement they had reached with D.V.G., a minor, resolving her claims for coverage stemming from injuries she received in an automobile accident, following her death in a subsequent unrelated automobile accident. The federal district court ultimately concluded that the issue presented involved a question of Alabama law for which there was no clear controlling precedent, and it certified the following question to the Alabama Supreme Court: "Under Alabama law, is an insurance company bound to a settlement agreement negotiated on behalf of an injured minor, if that minor dies before the scheduling of a pro ami hearing which was intended by both sides to obtain approval of the settlement?" The Court answered in the affirmative: "an insurance company is bound to a settlement agreement negotiated on behalf of an injured minor, even if that minor dies before the scheduling of the court hearing that all parties agreed was necessary to obtain approval of the settlement agreement. In accordance with the parties' understanding, such a hearing is still required, and the minor's death does not render that hearing impossible." View "Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. Wood" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Joe F. Watkins, Patricia M. Smith, and RE/MAX Lake Martin Properties, LLC sued Bear Brothers, Inc., ETC Lake Development, LLC ("ETC Lake"), and E.T. "Bud" Chambers, among others, asserting claims related to the construction and development of a condominium project on Lake Martin. ETC Lake and Chambers crossclaimed against Bear Brothers seeking to recover losses suffered on the project as well as indemnification for the costs of litigating the plaintiffs' action and any damages for which they might be found liable to the plaintiffs. In January 2010, Bear Brothers moved the circuit court to compel arbitration of the cross-claim against it. The circuit court did not rule on that motion. Bear Brothers renewed its motion in July 2011, and the circuit court granted the motion to compel arbitration of the cross-claim in December. Bear Brothers then moved the circuit court "to stay [the] proceedings [in the plaintiffs' action] pending the outcome of a related arbitration." After a hearing, the circuit court denied the motion to stay. Bear Brothers appealed the circuit court's order denying the motion to stay to the Supreme Court; ETC Lake and Chambers moved to dismiss the appeal. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the motion at issue in this case was a motion to stay related proceedings pending the arbitration of a crossclaim between codefendants and was filed separately from the initial motion to compel arbitration of the cross-claim and subsequent to the circuit court's order granting the motion. Thus, Bear Brothers did not demonstrate a right to appeal the denial of the motion to stay at this time, and accordingly the Court dismissed the appeal as being from a nonfinal judgment. View "Bear Brothers, Inc. v. ETC Lake Development, LLC" on Justia Law