Justia Alabama Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Now defucnt Galt Industries, its former president, his wife, and a former employees sued Aegis Strategic Investment Corporation and its sole shareholder Mark Heisz, alleging Aegis failed to fulfill certain terms of an asset-purchase agreement. Following a jury trial, the trial court entered a judgment awarding Galt $824,000 in damages, and held Aegis jointly and severally liable for those damages. Aegis appealed. Finding that the evidence presented at trial did not support the trial court's decision, the Supreme Court reversed the decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Heisz v. Galt Industries, Inc." on Justia Law

Jim Walter Resources, Inc. (JWR) sought a petition for a writ of mandamus to direct the Tuscaloosa County Probate Court to record certain filings without the payment of a recording tax. Walter Energy, JWR's parent company, acquired Western Coal Corporation of Canada. As part of the acquisition, Walter entered into a credit agreement with Morgan Stanley, which required Walter's subsidiaries to execute contingent guaranties of Walter's financing debt in the event Walter defaulted. JWR secured its guaranty of Walter Energy's financing debt by executing mortgages on its real and leasehold properties. Also as part of the credit agreement, JWR was required to record the mortgages in the probate offices in the counties in which the properties were located. When JWR sought to record the mortgages and related UCC filings in Tuscaloosa, the Tuscaloosa County Probate Court refused to record the documents unless JWR paid the recordation tax. The probate judge maintained that there was no statutory requirement that under Alabama law that the debt being secured be the mortgagor's debt, and as such, because JWR was recording its financing statements for Walter's debt, JWR was still responsible for paying the tax. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that JWR's liability was contingent on Walter's default, and JWR's contingent guaranty did not constitute an unqualified promise to pay Walter's indebtedness under the credit agreement. The Court found the contingent guaranty was not within the scope of the applicable statute, and accordingly, the Court granted JWR's petition and issued the writ. View "Jim Walter Resources, Inc. v. McCollum" on Justia Law

Retired district judge M. John Steensland, Jr. appealed a judgment of the Alabama Court of the Judiciary (COJ) that publicly censured him for misconduct that preceeded his retirement. In 2008, Judge Steensland had begun to serve a six-year term when the Judicial Inquiry Commission (JIC) began an investigation based on complaints of his courtroom conduct and demeanor filed by several parties that had come before the judge in prior cases. In 2010 while the JIC's investigation was ongoing, the Judge voluntarily retired from office. On appeal, Judge Steensland did not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence or the nature of the discipline imposed. He merely renewed the grounds he originally asserted in his motion to dismiss the complaint: the absence of jurisdiction and the application of the doctrine of condonation. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the COJ did not err in entering its judgment against Judge Steensland, and accordingly affirmed that decision. View "Steensland, Jr. v. Alabama Judicial Inquiry Comm'n" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Claudia Dabbieri filed a complaint at the Perry County circuit court naming Donald Wease, Alabama Cable and Fiber Repair, PDQ CATV, Inc., City Boy's Tire and Brake, Inc. (CBT), Continental Tire the Americas, LLC, and several fictitiously entities as defendants, asserting claims arising out of a motor-vehicle accident. CBT moved to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. The trial court denied that motion, and CBT petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the trial court to grant CBT's motion to dismiss. CBT is a Florida company, but operates a shop in Perry County. Plaintiff was driving a truck owned by Wease. Wease and Alabama Cable had all four tires on the van replaced. Plaintiff brought the van to CBT to replace the tires. Shortly thereafter, one of the tires failed, causing the van to leave the road and roll. Plaintiff sustained severe injuries. Later investigation would reveal that the tire failure was probably caused by tread separation which might have been caused by the improper sizing of the tires on the van. Finding that there was "limited evidence" that gave no indication that CBT "purposefully availed" itself of the protection of Alabama law, the Supreme Court granted CBT's petition and issued the writ. View "Dabbieri v. City Boy's Tire & Brake, Inc." on Justia Law

Harry and Bettye Coughlin appealed a circuit court's judgment dismissing Sheriff Mike Hale from an action they filed against him and several others. In 2008, the Coughlins sued Hale, among others, seeking money damages for numerous claims arising out of an ongoing dispute between the Coughlins and their neighbors. Hale moved to dismiss, arguing the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over them based on sovereign immunity. The circuit court entered its final judgment in 2010 disposing of all remaining claims against all remaining parties. Four days after that final judgment, the Coughlins filed a postjudgment motion, which the circuit court denied. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the Coughlins filed their notice of appeal more than two years after the judgment they were appealing had been entered. The Court concluded that this was an untimely filing and dismissed the appeal. View "Coughlin v. Hale " on Justia Law

Oak Grove Resources, LLC, and Cliffs North American Coal, LLC (Oak Grove) appealed a trial court's order in favor of class Plaintiffs finding that Oak Grove failed to satisfy the requirements of a settlement agreement between the parties, and ordered the continued monitoring of air near Plaintiffs' properties for the presence of coal dust for one year. Plaintiffs sued Oak Grove in 1997 alleging that it operated a preparation plant in a manner that caused coal dust to become airborne and to migrate to their properties, where it settled, causing them to suffer both personal injury and property damage. In October 2002, the parties entered into a settlement agreement the 2002 settlement agreement provided for certain injunctive relief and the payment of attorney fees and expenses. The injunctive relief required Oak Grove to complete 14 specific remedial measures within 24 months of the execution of the 2002 settlement agreement. Oak Grove implemented the remedial measures at the Concord plant following the trial court's approval of the 2002 settlement agreement. However, Plaintiffs continued to complain that the Concord plant emitted coal dust onto their properties and that the remedial measures had not satisfactorily solved the problem. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that no objection was raised by Plaintiffs to the site locations until two months after testing began in July 2009. Furthermore, Plaintiffs' expert did not visit the air-monitoring sites until January 2010. The Court concluded that Plaintiffs inexcusably delayed in asserting their rights under a 2008 supplement and that Oak Grove would be unduly prejudiced if Plaintiffs were allowed to assert those rights. The Court reversed the trial court's award of injunctive relief, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Oak Grove Resources, LLC v. White" on Justia Law

Betty Bradberry and Inez T. Jones, as the "personal representatives of the heirs-at-law and/or wrongful death beneficiaries of" the decedents, Roland E. Bradberry and George D. Jones, respectively (Plaintiffs), appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Carrier Corporation and multiple other defendants in the their wrongful-death action based on their decedents' exposure to asbestos in their work environment. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were jointly and severally liable for the death of their decedents through the contamination of the decedents' work sites. During the pendency of the proceedings, some of the defendants filed for bankruptcy. When those insolvent defendants moved to sever themselves from case due to the stay provisions under the bankruptcy code (and ultimately be dismissed), Plaintiffs fought to keep the action against all defendants together, arguing that the asbestos claims were one single cause of action that could not be split. The solvent defendants moved for a summary judgement to dismiss the case, arguing there was insufficient evidence to indicate the decedents had been exposed to any asbestos-containing projects manufactured or supplied by each defendant. The trial court ultimately granted summary judgment to all defendants, and Plaintiffs appealed. Upon careful review of the trial record and the applicable legal authorities, the Supreme Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment as to all defendants. View "Bradberry v. Carrier Corp." on Justia Law

Randy Fielding petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the Walker Circuit Court to vacate its order denying his motion for summary judgment and to enter a summary judgment based on his claim to State immunity. In November 2004, Debra Jackson and Jerry Jackson sued Fielding, individually and in his capacity as a deputy sheriff, after he entered their property and shot their dog while on duty. The complaint alleged claims of negligence, wantonness, the tort of outrage, intentional infliction of emotional distress, trespass to person, and trespass on property. The Jacksons sought "compensatory, actual, incidental, and punitive damages, plus attorney fees." Fielding moved for summary judgment, arguing that because he was acting within the line and scope of his employment as a sheriff's deputy at the time of the incident, he was entitled to State immunity from the Jacksons' suit. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded Fielding established a clear legal right to a writ of mandamus. Therefore, the Court granted his petition and issue the writ. View " Jackson v. City of Cordova" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court addressed the validity of a circuit court order that granted Pamela and Robert Washington a new trial. In an earlier action, the Supreme Court issued a writ of mandamus on petition of John Limerick, which directed the trial court to vacate its order that granted the Washngtons' motion for a new trial. The Court issued the writ on the basis that the Washington's motion was entered after the 90-day period referred to in Rule 59.1, Ala. R. Civ. P., thus depriving the trial court of jurisdiction in the case. While the Supreme Court was considering the validity of the trial court's new-trial order in that earlier case, the Washingtons filed a motion for relief from judgment in the present case which related back to their motion in the earlier action. On January 7, 2011, upon release of our opinion in Limerick, the trial court entered an order vacating its order granting a new trial in accordance with our instructions but simultaneously setting the Washingtons' pending Rule 60(b) motion for a hearing. Approximately six months later, on July 1, 2011, the trial court once again ordered a new trial, purportedly based this time on Rule 60(b). Subsequently, Limerick petitioned this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to vacate its second new-trial order. Once again, the Supreme Court granted the petition and issued the writ. View "Washington v. Limerick" on Justia Law

The State of Alabama petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the Court of Criminal Appeals to vacate its order that granted a mandamus petition filed by Jeremy B. Jones, and that directed Mobile Circuit Judge Charles Graddick to recuse himself from presiding over Jones's postconviction proceedings. In October 2005, Judge Graddick presided over a trial in which Jones was convicted on four counts of capital murder and was sentenced to death. The jury was sequestered throughout the trial, which lasted several days. After his conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal, Jones filed a petition for postconviction relief. In that petition Jones alleged that juror "T.E." was unfit to serve on the jury on account of alcohol dependence and that T.E. had failed to answer truthfully certain questions on voir dire regarding his alcohol dependence. According to Jones, posttrial interviews revealed: (1) that T.E. had told Judge Graddick during Jones's trial that he was an alcoholic; (2) that T.E. had received permission from Judge Graddick to drink alcohol during sequestration; and (3) that Judge Graddick did not inform Jones's counsel that T.E. had requested such permission and that Judge Graddick had granted it. Jones's petition alleged juror misconduct, as well as juror incompetence. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that because Judge Graddick would not be a material witness in Jones's postconviction proceedings, no "reasonable person knowing everything that the judge knows would have a 'reasonable basis for questioning the judge's impartiality.'" Thus, the Court held Judge Graddick did not exceed his discretion in denying Jones's motion for his recusal, and the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in holding that he did. The Court granted the State's petition for mandamus. View "Alabama vs. Jones" on Justia Law