Justia Alabama Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Petitioner Beverly Scannelly petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the circuit court to vacate all orders it entered after she filed a notice of dismissal. Furthermore, Petitioner sought a writ of prohibition to restrain the lower court from future attempts to exercise jurisdiction over her case. Petitioner sued her brother, Respondent Gary Toxey, in 2009, seeking to void certain real-estate transfers her father made to Mr. Toxey. Petitioner filed, sought dismissal, and refilled her complaint three times in three different circuit courts. Mr. Toxey "answered" Petitioner’s complaint approximately one year later by filing a responsive pleading that collaterally attacked her complaint under "res judicata." The circuit court dismissed her case in 2010, finding that Mr. Toxey essentially filed a motion for summary judgment and that Petitioner’s claims presented no issues of material fact. In affirming the circuit court’s decision, the Supreme Court concluded that Petitioner failed to demonstrate she had a clear legal right to her requested writs. Accordingly, the Court denied her petition. View "Scannelly v. Toxey" on Justia Law

In 1991, Defendant Carl Ward was convicted on murder charges and sentenced to life in prison. Acting pro se, Defendant challenged his conviction to the Supreme Court, alleging that recently discovered material facts warranted his conviction to be vacated. Central to Defendant's "newly-discovered facts" were the results of forensic tests performed on the key evidence that convicted him. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that "the newly discovered facts at issue here relate[d] not to some procedural violation, but to [Defendant's] actual guilt or innocence." The evidence against Defendant was largely circumstantial; the only physical evidence in the record tying Defendant to the crime scene was the evidence subject to the forensic tests. Accordingly, the Court found that Defendant sufficiently pled a claim of newly discovered material facts, and that he was entitled to an opportunity to prove his allegations. The Court reversed the lower courts' decisions in this case, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Ward v. Alabama" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was the application of a six-year statute of limitations to a claim of "wantonness." Plaintiff William Walker filed suit against Capstone Building Corporation (Capstone) and several fictitiously named parties. Capstone had been the general contractor on a construction job on which he worked. While working at the construction site, Plaintiff stepped onto a manhole cover which flipped over, causing him to fall into the hole. Plaintiff asserted that Capstone had been responsible for providing a safe work environment at the site, but it failed to do so. Plaintiff alleged that Capstone's failure to secure the manhole cover constituted "negligence" or "wantonness." Alabama law provides that wanton conduct must be commenced within six years. Capstone moved to dismiss the claims, asking the Supreme Court to change Alabama case law in favor of a two-year limitation for this case. The Supreme Court engaged in an extensive review of the trial record and the applicable law. The Court overruled its previous holding in "McKenzie v. Killian" which mandated the six-year limitation on claims for wantonness, finding that if it "did not ... overrule 'McKenzie,' [the Court] would be enshrining in out law an erroneous decision." The Court found that "the law in Alabama concerning the proper legal analysis of wantonness was not settled and was in fact based on confusing and inconsistent discussions of causality rather than culpability." The Court applied its change prospectively to litigants as to whom the six-year limitations had begun but had not yet expired. To this end, the Court found that Plaintiff's case was timely filed under the McKenzie rule. The Court reversed the appellate court's decision that dismissed Plaintiff's wantonness claim, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Walker v. Capstone Building Corp." on Justia Law

The Town of Boligee appealed a circuit court judgment that denied it a declaration that certain acts by the Greene County Water & Sewer Authority (the Authority) were not properly authorized. In 2008, the Town brought suit complaining that the Authority's excavation, tree cutting and installation of water pipelines in Boligee's right-of-way were unlawful because the Authority did not obtain the town's permission first. The Town also sought tort damages to recover for all of the allegedly unauthorized excavation work. In 2003, the Town Council and the Authority had discussed building the pipeline, but ultimately voted against it. However, the Mayor signed a written agreement permitting the Authority to start construction. The trial court ruled that the Mayor had the authority to bind Boligee to the agreement, and dismissed its tort claims. Upon review of the trial record, the Supreme Court found that although the Mayor is authorized to enter into and execute the type of contract at issue in this case, the Mayor was only allowed to do so to the extent directed by the Town council. The Court found the Mayor acted without authorization, and accordingly reversed the trial court's judgment. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Town Of Boligee v. Greene County Water & Sewer Authority" on Justia Law

Barbara Roberts sued Steve Lanier and his firm Steve Lanier, PC, and Rodney Stallings and his firm Coggin & Stallings, LLC. In 2006, Ms. Roberts was arrested on murder charges and sent to the Cherokee County jail. She contacted Attorney Lanier, who then met with her and agreed to represent her in her criminal proceedings. The contract between them provided that Ms. Roberts would pay a "nonrefundable retainer" of $50,000. At that time, Ms. Roberts executed a power-of-attorney authorizing Mr. Lanier to withdraw the retainer from her bank accounts. Ms. Roberts testified at trial that she first learned that Mr. Lanier was not licensed to practice law in Alabama when she appeared for her first hearing at the district court. It was then that she was introduced to Mr. Stallings, who "associated" on her case. Seeing no need for two lawyers, she tried to terminate Mr. Lanier's representation. Mr. Stallings eventually managed Ms. Roberts' case, having all her mail sent to his office so that he could "oversee every aspect" of her personal life, including payment of all outstanding bills and expenses. Ms. Roberts alleged that instead of using her money for the purposes she intended, Mr. Stallings misappropriated approximately $100,000 of her funds. Ms. Roberts was eventually convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life without parole. She later learned that the "nonrefundable retainer" language in her contract with Mr. Lanier was unenforceable under Alabama law, and sued her former lawyers for legal malpractice. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the lawyers. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the lawyers only with respect to employment contract and the "nonrefundable retainer" and the misappropriation of Ms. Roberts' money for expenses while she awaited trial. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Roberts v. Lanier " on Justia Law

Grandparents, E.R.G and D.W.G., challenged the constitutionality of the state Grandparent Visitation Act. The Grandparents and E.H.G. and C.L.G (the Parents) had a very close relationship. The failure of a business shared by the father and the grandfather caused financial difficulties for both families, and eventually the relationships between all involved disintegrated. Desirous to maintain relationships with their grandchildren, the Grandparents petitioned the circuit court for visitation under the Act. The Parents argued in their response to the Grandparents' petition that the Act was unconstitutional on both its face and as it applied to them. Upon careful consideration of the briefs submitted by the parties and the applicable legal standards, the Supreme Court held the Act was unconstitutional. "Because the Act authorizes a court to award visitation to a grandparent whenever doing so is 'in the best interests of the minor child,'" the Act could potentially override a parent's decision to deny the grandparent visitation without regard for the fundamental right of a fit parent to direct the upbringing for of his or her child. View "In re E.H.G." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Branded Trailer Sales, Inc. (Branded) appealed a circuit court judgment that dismissed its case against Universal Truckload Services for lack of personal jurisdiction. A customer contacted Branded about having some flatbed trailers designed and manufactured. Branded contacted Universal for a recommendation for companies that could do the work. Universal recommended Liddell Trailers, LLC to design and manufacture the trailers. Branded entered into a contract with Liddell. The contract provided that Universal would buy several of the specially-designed trailers from Branded. Liddell later contacted Branded that the price for each trailer would increase from their previously-agreed cost, and that it would take longer for the components to be assembled. Branded would later learn that Universal negotiated a deal directly with Liddell to provide the same trailers at a lower price, excluding Branded from the agreement. Branded filed suit alleging that Universal and Liddell had intentionally interfered with the Branded-Liddell contract. Upon review, the Supreme Court found sufficient evidence that Branded made detailed assertions regarding its theories of personal jurisdiction, and the record reflected Branded presented that evidence to support those assertions. Therefore, the Court found that the trial court exceeded its discretion when it granted Universal's motion to dismiss. The Court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Branded Trailer Sales, Inc. v. Universal Truckload Services, Inc." on Justia Law

The Greens at Auburn, The Greens at Auburn Land Development and the Loachapoka Water Authority (LWA) all appealed a partial summary judgment in favor of the Water Works Board of the City of Auburn (AWWB). As Auburn grew westward and southward, the city limits expanded to include certain portions of the territory to which LWA is authorized to provide service. Several disputes have arisen between AWWB and LWA concerning which entity will provide service in their overlapping areas. In 2009, AWWB filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment that it could provide water services to several discrete locations within the disputed areas. The Greens companies petitioned to intervene in the suit because they held interests in the disputed areas. In June 2010, the trial court entered a partial summary judgment in favor of AWWB on a majority of claims asserted in its complaint, including to those claims pertaining to The Greens at Auburn. In the same order, the court dismissed an LWA counterclaim, and certified the partial summary judgment as final. Upon review of the record, the Supreme Court found that the trial court exceeded its discretion by certifying the partial summary judgment as final. The Court set the certification aside and remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Loachapoka Water Authority, Inc. v. City of Auburn" on Justia Law

Ninety-year-old Mary Shaw was admitted to the emergency room at the Mobile Infirmary Medical Center in 2008. After surgery, she developed pressure sores while a patient at the Center. She was transferred to Defendant Infirmary Health System, Inc.'s (IHS) long term acute care center. Within a day of her transfer, she died. The Shaw family wanted to sue IHS for its alleged negligent care of Ms. Shaw. According to the attorney, The Shaws' counsel called IHS's counsel to ask which entity the Shaws should sue. IHS's counsel allegedly told him to sue IHS, and "the identity of the proper parties would be sorted out later." Subsequently the Shaws filed suit against IHS, which went unanswered. The Shaws attempted to amend their complaint to reflect the proper legal entity to sue, but IHS moved to dismiss, citing the expiration of the statute of limitations applicable in wrongful-death cases. The trial court denied IHS's motion. IHS in turn petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to compel dismissal of the case. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the Shaws' attorney did not exercise due diligence in attempting to ascertain the proper party to sue. The Court found that IHS established a clear right to have the wrongful-death action against it dismissed. Accordingly, the Court issued the writ of mandamus and directed the trial court to enter judgment in IHS's favor. View "Shaw v. Infirmary Health System, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Leroy Bandy and David Russell appealed a circuit court judgment in favor of the City of Birmingham. In 2009, Plaintiffs challenged the results of the City Council and Board of Education elections on the basis that a change in a local ordinance governing the election was unconstitutional. Plaintiffs argued that only the legislature could make changes to the local laws pertaining to elections. Plaintiffs sought an injunction to prevent the swearing in of the newly elected council members. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the City had the authority to change its election procedure by ordinance rather than through the state legislature. Upon careful consideration of the briefs submitted and the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court found that the trial court properly entered its judgment in favor of the City. The Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. View "Bandy v. City of Birmingham" on Justia Law