Justia Alabama Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Students and former students of the University of Alabama, Auburn University, and the University of Alabama at Birmingham, filed three separate class-action lawsuits in the Jefferson Circuit Court challenging the legality of so-called "dining-dollars" programs implemented by the universities and pursuant to which all undergraduate students were required to pay a mandatory dining fee each semester, which was then credited back to the students in the form of "dining dollars" that could be spent only at on-campus dining outlets controlled exclusively by the food-service vendors for the universities - Aramark Educational Services, Inc., at UA; Compass Group, USA, Inc. (Chartwells) at Auburn; and Sodexo, Inc., at UAB. The trial court dismissed the three actions, and the students appealed. The Supreme Court consolidated the appeals for the purpose of writing one opinion and affirmed all three. The students sued the boards of trustees governing the universities and the food-service vendors, alleging that the dining-dollars programs violated: (1) state antitrust laws; (2) the Alabama Constitution inasmuch as it forbids the State from having an interest in a private enterprise; (3) the rule in 16-1-32(d) barring universities from charging excessive transaction fees to merchants that accept university-issued debit cards; and (4) the common-law prohibition on conversion. Because the boards of trustees are entitled to state immunity pursuant to section 14 of the Alabama Constitution, all claims against them were properly dismissed. The university administrators and foodservice vendors were entitled to immunity on the asserted antitrust claims as well, albeit state-action immunity as opposed to state immunity. Moreover, because the students lacked standing to pursue a cause of action for a violation of 16-1-32(d), and because the students did not and could not allege the necessary elements of a conversion claim, the trial court also properly dismissed the students' other claims. View "Vandenberg v. Aramark Educational Services, Inc." on Justia Law

Melvin Jarrett petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Criminal Appeals' unpublished memorandum affirming the circuit court's denial of his petition for postconviction relief. Jarrett challenged his 2006 guilty-plea conviction for one count of failing to comply with the requirement of the Community Notification Act (CNA) that he provide notice of his intent to move his legal residence. Jarrett alleged, as he did before the Court of Criminal Appeals, that his 15-year sentence imposed following his conviction for violating the CNA was illegal. Specifically, Jarrett contended that his offense was complete before October 1, 2005, the effective date of the amendment to the CNA which changed the violation from a Class A misdemeanor to a Class C felony. Jarrett argued that the offense to which he pleaded guilty was, at the time he committed it was only a misdemeanor, not a Class C felony, thus, his 15-year sentence was not authorized by law. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed with Jarrett and reversed the Court of Criminal Appeals' sentence. View "Jarrett v. Alabama" on Justia Law

Defendant Jo Ann Hood appealed a trial court's order that granted a motion for a new trial filed by Plaintiff Elizabeth McElroy as personal representative of the estate of Austin Taylor Terry (the estate). The mother of Austin Taylor Terry, who was then 12 months old, admitted him to the Children's Hospital of Alabama. A social worker at the hospital notified the county Department of Human Resources (DHR) that Terry had suffered "suspicious non-accidental injuries." Terry's father, who was divorced from Terry's mother, also contacted DHR after he learned of his son's hospitalization. He spoke with an after-hours on-call DHR service worker learned that Chris Wesson, the mother's boyfriend, had been in the house with Terry. The service worker recommended that Terry not be allowed to return home when he was discharged. A DHR supervisor who had not seen the report, assigned Defendant to investigate Terry's suspected abuse and informed the Hospital that Terry could go home with his mother when he was discharged. Based on her investigation, Defendant determined that it was safe to leave Terry in his mother's care. Subsequently, Terry died from brain injuries caused by Wesson. Terry's parents filed separate wrongful-death actions naming Wesson, Children's Hospital, Hood, and other DHR social workers as defendants. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the estate and awarded $25,000 in damages against Wesson and Hood. The estate filed a motion for a new trial, arguing among other things, that a juror's failure to respond to a voir dire question prevented the estate from using its jury strikes effectively because it would have used one to remove the juror had the juror answered the question. After Hood filed her opposition to the estate's postjudgment motion, the court granted the motion on the ground that the estate was probably prejudiced in its right to a fair and impartial trial as a result of the juror's failure to respond to the voir dire question. Upon review, the Supreme Court could not conclude that "[the juror's] failure to reveal, in response to the particular questions asked, [provided] adequate support for a finding ... so as to warrant retrying this case." The Court reversed the trial court and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Hood v. McElroy" on Justia Law

Capmark Bank appealed a preliminary injunction entered in favor of RGR, LLC; MB Park, LLC; TTM MB Park, LLC; Robert G. Randall; and T. Todd Martin III (referred to collectively as "RGR") which enjoined Capmark from foreclosing on certain real property that served as the primary collateral for a loan from Capmark to RGR, LCC, MB Park, LLC, and TTM MB Park, LLC. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded RGR failed to establish the requisite elements entitling it to a preliminary injunction. The Court therefore reversed the trial court's judgment issuing the injunction. View "Capmark Bank v. RGR, LLC " on Justia Law

Tate & Lyle Sucralose, Inc. (TLS) petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the Washington Circuit Court to vacate its December 1, 2010 order denying its motion to dismiss, and to enter an order dismissing as time-barred the negligence and wantonness claims asserted by William C.Anderson, Jr. against it. Upon review of the circuit court's record, the Supreme Court concluded that Anderson failed to exercise due diligence in ascertaining TLS's identity, and that failure barred his attempt to amend his complaint to substitute TLS for a fictitiously named defendant so as to avoid the application of the statute of limitations barring his negligence claims. The Court also concluded that as to Anderson's wantonness claims, the limitations period had not yet expired. Therefore, the Court granted the petition in part and denied it in part and issued the writ. View "Anderson v. Tate & Lyle PLC" on Justia Law

Timothy C. Allsopp appealed a trial court's denial of his motion for relief from a judgment entered in favor of James and Kisha Bolding. The Boldings sued Naysa Realty and Investments, LLC, Deleana Davis, Keller-Williams Realty Co., and Allsopp. The Boldings alleged breach of fiduciary duty, and three counts of fraud arising out of real-estate transactions in Madison County. Davis was a principal in Naysa Realty and was employed by Keller-Williams as a real-estate agent. Davis advised the Boldings, who were purchasing property, to give Allsopp power of attorney to sign certain closing documents on their behalf. A default judgment was entered against Allsopp, with leave for the Boldings to prove damages against him later. Allsopp argued on appeal that the evidence against him was insufficient to support the judgment against him. Upon review, the Supreme Court found the evidence sufficient to support the trial court's decision and affirmed the judgment in the Boldings' favor. View "Allsopp v. Bolding" on Justia Law

Alabama Psychiatric Services, P.C. (APS) appealed a grant of summary judgment by the circuit court in favor of 412 South Court Street, LLC (Court Street). SRS Group, LLC, owned by Eugene Sak, began substantial renovations to the Court Street building, including gutting and rebuilding the interior of the structure. Sak entered into negotiations with Make Believe, LLC, to lease space in the building for use as a gym and exercise facility. While he was negotiating with Make Believe, Sak entered into discussions with APS about leasing office space. During the negotiations, APS voiced concerns about having a discreet entrance for APS's clients and about potential noise from a gym facility in the building and that there would not be sufficient parking for APS patients and staff because of the use of the parking lot by members of the gym. Sak assured APS that the noise problem would be solved, that parking would be sufficient for both the gym members and APS, and that when construction of the addition was complete, the gym would have its own separate entrance. Sak sold the building before construction was complete. The new ownership assumed AFS' lease but the discreet entrance was not built. On appeal, APS argued that it was fraudulently induced to sign a lease agreement for space in the building. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the trial court record contained substantial evidence to support APS's claim that there exists a genuine issue of material fact as to whether, through misrepresentation and the suppression of material facts, Sak fraudulently induced APS to enter into the lease agreement. Accordingly, the Court reversed the trial court and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Alabama Psychiatric Services, P.C. v. 412 South Court Street, LLC. " on Justia Law

Defendants Lafarge North America, Inc. and Wayne Looney appealed a jury verdict in favor of Plaintinff Lawrence Nord. Plaintiff's claims arose from a personal injury he sustained at Lafarge's cement packhouse. Various forms of bagged cement are loaded onto flatbed trucks owned and operated by companies other than Lafarge, by Lafarge employees using forklifts. The drivers of the flatbed trucks drive their trucks into the loading zone of the packhouse. Plaintiff, a driver for Southern Tank, was injured in the loading zone of the packhouse when Lafarge employee Looney ran over Plaintiff's foot with a forklift, breaking several bones. In their postjudgment motion, Defendants argued that Plaintiff failed to produce sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings on his wantonness claim; that Plaintiff's negligence claim was barred because he had been contributorily negligent; that if the jury verdict stood, Defendants were "entitled to a setoff in the amount of the damages claimed by [Nord] which [had] already been recovered by ... Nord ..."; that the trial court had erred by instructing the jury on wantonness, punitive damages, and premises liability; and that the verdict form submitted to the jury was improper. Upon review of the trial record, the Supreme Court found that the record was insufficient to support the jury's verdict in favor of Plaintiff. The Court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for judgment in favor of Defendants. View "Lafarge North America, Inc. v. Nord " on Justia Law

Getloaded Corporation, TransCore, and Roper Industries, Inc. (collectively, Getloaded), and American Timber & Steel Company, Inc. (ATSC), petitioned the Supreme Court for writs of mandamus to direct the Montgomery Circuit Court to dismiss them as defendants based on a lack of personal jurisdiction in actions filed by Plaintiffs Bishop Ivey, Carolyn Kelley, Joan Foye Wynn, Sonie Taylor, Annette Fenn, Kendra Bouier, and Jenny Simmons. The plaintiffs were representatives of the estates of passengers riding in an Alabama Department of Corrections van who died as a result of an October 2008 accident. A truck carrying lumber purchased by ATSC from Getloaded tried to pass another vehicle on the highway. The van hit the passing truck and caught fire, engulfing the van in flames killing all inside. The plaintiffs' respective complaints asserted claims against the purchasers of the lumber, the truck drivers and their trucking companies, and others who were otherwise involved in the loading and delivery of the lumber. ATSC filed an answer to the complaints in which, among other things, it pleaded lack of personal jurisdiction. In April 2009, the claims against ATSC were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. The plaintiffs then reached a settlement with one of the trucking companies and its driver. The circuit court found that the remaining Defendants had the sufficient "minimum contacts" with the state to justify the exercise of personal jurisdiction. Upon review, the Supreme Court found Defendants did not have sufficient contact with the state in order for the circuit court to exercise personal jurisdiction over them. The Supreme Court reversed the court's decision and remanded the case to dismiss Defendants from this action. View "In re: Ivey v. Lewis Trucking Co. " on Justia Law

Reginald Hayes appealed the circuit court's dismissal of his action against Jo Ann Henley both individually and in her capacity as the personal representative of the estate of her deceased husband Earl Hoyt Henley (Hoyt). Hayes sustained injuries when his automobile struck a horse on a highway. The horse rolled onto the roof of the automobile and the roof collapsed, breaking Hayes's neck and rendering him a quadriplegic. Hayes filed a multicount complaint against Mazda and against Henley, alleging that the horse he struck belonged to Hoyt and/or Henley and that Hoyt and/or Henley had allowed the horse to roam onto the highway thereby causing the accident. As to Mazda, Hayes alleged that the automobile was defectively designed and/or manufactured and that it was not crashworthy. The circuit court entered two orders in which it granted Henley's motions and dismissed the claims against Henley individually and as representative of the estate. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that "the circuit court's order disposing of Hayes's claims against Henley in her individual capacity is due to be affirmed. We cannot reach the same conclusion, however, as to the circuit court's disposition of all Hayes's claims against Henley in her capacity as personal representative of Hoyt's estate." The Court reversed the circuit court's ruling that the estate "knowingly and willfully" placed the horse upon the highway. View "Hayes v. Henley" on Justia Law