Justia Alabama Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Inmate Charleton Thomas petitioned for postconviction relief, which the circuit court summarily dismissed. The Court of Criminal Appeals, by unpublished memorandum, affirmed the summary dismissal of Thomas's petition, concluding that Thomas's Rule 32 petition was untimely because, at the time he filed his Rule 32 petition, Thomas had not paid the filing fee or filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded, finding that the evidence in the record created a question of material fact as to whether Thomas's in forma pauperis declaration was filed with his Rule 32 petition, so as to render the Rule 32 petition timely. View "Ex parte Thomas." on Justia Law

The Retirement Systems of Alabama ("RSA"), the Teachers' Retirement System of Alabama ("TRS"), the Public Education Employees' Health Insurance Plan ("PEEHIP"), the Public Education Employees' Health Insurance Fund ("PEEHIF"), the Board of Control of TRS ("the TRS Board"), the Board of Control of PEEHIP ("the PEEHIP Board"), David Bronner, as chief executive officer of RSA and as secretary-treasurer of TRS and PEEHIP, and various members of the TRS Board and of the PEEHIP Board in their official capacities ("the PEEHIP defendants") sought mandamus review of the Circuit Court's denial of their motion to dismiss the claims filed against them by James Burks II, Eugenia Burks, Martin Hester, Jacqueline Hester, Thomas Highfield, Carol Ann Highfield, Jake Jackson, and Melinda Jackson, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals ("the public-education plaintiffs"). PEEHIP, which is managed by the PEEHIP Board, provided group health-insurance benefits to public-education employees in Alabama. The public-education plaintiffs alleged that a policy adopted by the PEEHIP Board in 2009 changed the amounts participants and their eligible dependents, and this change violated Article V, section 138.03, Alabama Constitution of 1901, as well as the public-education plaintiffs' rights to equal protection, due process, and freedom of association under the Alabama Constitution, the United States Constitution, and 42 U.S.C. 1983. The public-education plaintiffs also alleged that the 2009 policy violated Alabama public policy and their right to family integrity as protected by the Alabama Constitution. The public-education plaintiffs sought relief in the form of: (1) a judgment declaring "[the PEEHIP defendants'] practice of denying an allotment for insurance benefits to educators who are married to another educator and who have dependent children to be unconstitutional, discriminatory and unlawful under both State and Federal law"; (2) an injunction preventing the PEEHIP defendants from "denying an allotment for insurance benefits to educators whose spouse is also an educator in the public school system and who have dependent children"; (3) restitution of "amounts ... unlawfully withheld and/or ... amounts [the public-education plaintiffs] have paid for insurance that they would not have paid absent [the PEEHIP defendants'] unlawful conduct" or other equitable relief; and (4) costs and attorney fees. After review of the specific facts of this case, the Alabama Supreme Court granted the petition in part, denied in part, and issue a writ to direct the circuit court to dismiss all the public-education plaintiffs' claims against RSA, PEEHIP, the PEEHIP Board, PEEHIF, TRS, the TRS Board, the members of the TRS Board, and Bronner, in his capacity as chief executive officer of RSA and as secretary-treasurer of TRS; to dismiss all the public-education plaintiffs' state-law claims against the members of the PEEHIP Board and Bronner, in his capacity as secretary-treasurer of PEEHIP; and to dismiss the public-education plaintiffs' claims against the members of the PEEHIP Board and Bronner, in his capacity as secretary-treasurer of PEEHIP, for monetary relief, pursuant to § 1983. The petition was denied with regard to the public-education plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief, pursuant to section 1983, against the members of the PEEHIP Board and Bronner, in his capacity as secretary-treasurer of PEEHIP. The PEEHIP Board and Bronner were entitled to immunity from the state law claims, but not to immunity from the Eleventh Amendment claims for prospective injunctive relief under section 1983. View "Ex parte The Retirement Systems of Alabama et al." on Justia Law

Tanya Butts petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the Clarke Circuit Court to stay the proceedings in the underlying civil case until a criminal case pending against her was completed. Gaines McCorquodale and Butts each owned a one-half interest in Hometown Hospice, Inc. In July 2014, McCorquodale sued Butts, asserting claims based on allegations that Butts had misappropriated funds belonging to Hometown. The trial court entered a preliminary injunction prohibiting Butts from any involvement in the operation of Hometown. Butts contended that a stay in the civil case was necessary to protect her constitutional right against self-incrimination. The Supreme Court denied the petition: Butts was not entitled to a stay of that part of the civil case determining the value of Hometown in accordance with 10A-2-14.34. Because the trial court had not yet ruled on whether the remaining parts of the civil case should be stayed pending the resolution of the criminal case against her, mandamus relief was not appropriate on that issue. View "Ex parte Tanya Butts." on Justia Law

Christopher Floyd was convicted for the 2005 murder of Waylon Crawford, for which he was sentenced to death. The Alabama Supreme Court issued a writ of certiorari to determine whether the following holdings of the Court of Criminal Appeals in Floyd's appeal of his capital-murder conviction were proper: that the the trial court did not err in holding that the State provided valid race- and gender-neutral reasons for its exercise of its peremptory strikes during jury selection; that the trial court did not err by refusing to admit into evidence all of Floyd's statements made to law-enforcement officers; and that the trial court did not err in denying Floyd's motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Ex parte Christopher Floyd" on Justia Law

Nicholson Manufacturing Limited petitioned for a writ of mandamus to direct the Tuscaloosa Circuit Court to enter a summary judgment in its favor on the ground that Gerald Templeton's substitution of Nicholson for a fictitiously named defendant was made after the expiration of the applicable statutory limitations period and did not "relate back" to the filing of the original complaint. After review, the Supreme Court concluded Nicholson established it had a clear legal right to the relief requested. The Court granted the petition and issued the writ. View "Ex parte Nicholson Manufacturing Ltd." on Justia Law

Gudel AG, one of several defendants to this case, petitioned for a writ of mandamus to direct the Crenshaw Circuit Court to vacate its order denying Gudel's motion to dismiss the personal-injury claims filed against it by Robert and Cindy Rutledge, and to enter an order dismissing the Rutledges' claims on the basis of a lack of in personam jurisdiction. In February 2013, Robert sued Smart Alabama, LLC ("SAL"), an automotive-parts manufacturer located in Crenshaw County, seeking to recover worker's compensation benefits in connection with an alleged work-related injury Robert suffered in November 2011 while in SAL's employ. In November 2013, Robert amended his original complaint to add a count pursuant to Alabama's Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine as well as negligence and wantonness claims. In addition, the amended complaint added both Hyundai WIA ("Hyundai") and Gudel, as well as several fictitiously named entities, as defendants. The amended complaint alleged that Gudel, a foreign corporation headquartered in Switzerland, "designed, built, manufactured, tested and sold [the] subject machine/equipment that is the subject matter of [the Rutledges'] lawsuit." After review, the Supreme Court held that the trial court exceeded its discretion in determining that it possessed personal jurisdiction over Gudel. Accordingly, Gudel has established a clear legal right to the dismissal of the claims against it; therefore, the Alabama Court granted the petition and directed the trial court to vacate its order denying Gudel's motion to dismiss and to dismiss the Rutledges' claims against Gudel. View "Ex parte Gudel AG." on Justia Law

Fairfield Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLC; D&N, LLC; DTD HC, LLC; Aurora Cares, LLC (alleged to be doing business as "Tara Cares"); and Aurora Healthcare, LLC (collectively, "the defendants"), petitioned for a writ of mandamus to direct the trial court to vacate its February 6, 2015, order denying their "Motion to Quash Depositions and Motion for Protective Order, and Motion to Reconsider January 30, 2015[,] Order." The defendants also requested that the Supreme Court direct the trial court to grant their motion. In May 2006, Myrtis Hill was a patient at Fairfield. While under Fairfield's care, Hill suffered a broken leg when a Fairfield employee, while attempting to transfer Hill to a bedside commode, allegedly dropped her to the floor thereby breaking Hill's right leg and causing severe injury to both of her legs. After review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court concluded the defendants demonstrated they had a clear legal right to the relief they requested, and that the trial court clearly exceeded its discretion in denying the defendants' motion for a protective order. Hill's "Motion for Award of Damages based on [the defendants'] pattern and practice of filing frivolous appeals" was denied. View "Ex parte Fairfield Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, LLC" on Justia Law

On or about August 1, 2006, the University of Southern Alabama (USA) hired Azin Agah, a cell biologist, as a tenure-track employee, to teach biochemistry and to research the abnormalities in the extracellular matrix and angiogenesis associated with the pathogenesis of scleroderma. In 2010, USA did not reappoint Agah based on alleged research misconduct. In 2011, Agah sued several department members at the College of Allied Health Professions at USA and chairman of the two ad hoc committees that evaluated Agah, and other fictitiously named parties, alleging theft of electronic computer data and her research logbook and intentional and malicious interference with her contractual relationship with USA and seeking recovery of chattels in specie for the electronic data and her research logbook. On March 21, 2013, Agah amended her complaint adding USA and others as defendants and adding various claims. The only claim in her amended complaint that specifically named USA as a defendant "[sought] a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and monetary damages against USA for the breach by USA of [her] tenure track employment contract with USA." As a state school, USA argued it was immune from civil actions and petitions the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the trial court to dismiss it from Agah's suit. Additionally, Amber Bartlett, a student who worked under Agah's supervision in USA's research laboratory and a defendant in the same underlying action, petitioned for a writ of mandamus to direct the trial court to issue an order quashing the subpoena issued to Alabama Psychiatric Services, P.C. ("APS"), ordering production of her mental-health records. The Court granted the petitions and issued the writs. USA and Bartlett have established that they had a clear, legal right to the relief they have requested. USA was entitled to absolute sovereign immunity from Agah's civil action, and the trial court was directed to enter a judgment of dismissal for USA. Bartlett was entitled to confidentiality of her mental-health records, and the trial court was directed to enter an order quashing Agah's subpoena for Bartlett's mental-health records from APS. View "Ex parte University of South Alabama" on Justia Law

In April 2010, Officer Brandon Brown, a police officer with the City of Fultondale, received a be-on-the-lookout ("BOLO") from dispatch for a blue Mitsubishi automobile, the occupants of which were suspected of having committed a theft, engaged in the pursuit of a blue Mitsubishi that he saw leaving the area of the offense. Moments after Officer Brown ceased pursuit of the blue Mitsubishi, the driver, Christopher Mitchell, ran a red light at an intersection and struck a vehicle being driven by Pamela Cupps in which David Cupps was a passenger. Pamela Cupps was killed and David Cupps was injured. David Cupps, on behalf of himself and as administrator of Pamela Cupps' estate, sued Mitchell, Officer Brown, and others. With regard to Officer Brown, David Cupps alleged that Officer Brown negligently and/or wantonly pursued Mitchell's vehicle by driving recklessly, that he negligently and/or wantonly pursued Mitchell's vehicle in violation of the City of Fultondale Police Department's pursuit policy and procedure, and that he violated section 32-5A-7(c), Ala. Code 1975, by operating his patrol vehicle in pursuit of another vehicle without the use of an audible signal. After the complaint was filed, David Cupps died; Allison Cupps, the administrator of the estates of David Cupps and Pamela Cupps, was substituted as the plaintiff. Officer Brown petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the Jefferson Circuit Court to vacate its order denying his summary-judgment motion and to enter a summary judgment in his favor based on State-agent immunity and statutory immunity on claims filed against him by Allison Cupps. Finding that Officer Brown established, as a matter of law, that he was entitled to State-agent immunity from Cupps' action, the Supreme Court granted his petition and issued the writ. View "Ex parte Brandon Brown." on Justia Law

Dixon Mills Volunteer Fire Department, Inc. and its assistant fire chief, Louis Cass White, petitioned for a writ of mandamus to direct the Circuit Court to vacate its order denying their motion for summary judgment on the basis of immunity as to negligence claims asserted against them by plaintiffs L.C. Westbrook, Jr., and Kimberly Lewis. Plaintiffs were seriously injured when the automobile they were driving collided with a fire department truck that was dispatched to a house fire. Upon review of the circuit court record, the Supreme Court concluded that petitioners established a clear right to mandamus relief as to White, but not to the department itself. Accordingly, the Supreme Court granted the petition as to White, and directed the trial court to enter summary judgment in his favor on plaintiffs' negligence claim. The Court denied the petition as to the department. View "Ex parte Dixon Mills Volunteer Fire Department, Inc." on Justia Law