Justia Alabama Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review centered on the Court of Criminal Appeals' decision ordering the Limestone Circuit Court to set bail for Joel Moyers. Moyers was charged with a capital offense, and an issue arose over whether a defendant so charged was entitled to bail if the State did not intend to seek the death penalty. The State argued that the Court of Criminal Appeals' decision in this matter conflicted with longstanding Alabama case law ("Ex parte Bynum," 312 So. 2d 52 (1975)). Alternatively, the State argued that the Court of Criminal Appeals' decision raised a material question of first impression that required decision by the Supreme Court. Based on the plain meaning of the statutory and constitutional provisions and the development of the case law in this area, the Supreme Court held that a "capital offense" within the meaning of constitutional and statutory provisions relating to bail is an offense that is punishable by death or by life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Therefore, when a defendant who is charged with a capital offense requests a trial court to set bail, under Ex parte Bynum, the court can deny that request for bail even if the State will not seek the death penalty. However, in order for the trial court to deny a request for bail from a defendant charged with a capital offense, the State must prove the three prerequisites noted in "Ex parte Patel," (879 So. 2d 532 (Ala. 2003)): "'The evidence must be clear and strong, that it would lead a well-guarded and dispassionate judgment to the conclusion that (1) the offense has been committed; (2) the accused is the guilty agent; and (3) he would probably be punished capitally if the law is administered.'" Moreover, Ex parte Patel held that if a defendant has been indicted for a capital offense, that defendant is presumed guilty for purposes of setting bail, and the defendant has the burden to overcome that presumption before he or she is entitled to bail as a matter of right. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals and remanded this case for further proceedings. View "Alabama v. Moyers " on Justia Law

Inmate Victor Russo appealed a circuit court's dismissal of his action against the Alabama Department of Corrections (ADOC). He challenged ADOC's implementation of a policy to charge a processing fee for money orders and cashier's checks deposited into an inmate's "prisoner money on deposit" account. The Supreme Court noted multiple fatal errors in Russo's pleadings, the sum of which was that Russo named ADOC as his sole adverse party, and that complaint "purported to effect an action against the State." As such, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear his case. The Supreme Court dismissed Russo's appeal.View "Russo v. Alabama Department of Corrections " on Justia Law

Respondents Reed Collar and Bonnie Collar, as the parents of Gilbert Collar, sued the University of South Alabama in connection with Gilbert's death. In October 2012, Gilbert was a student at the University. At some point while he and a few other students were talking, Gilbert was given a substance that was believed to have included illegal drugs. Gilbert had a sudden and immediate reaction to the substance: the reaction caused him either to become extremely hot or to believe that he was very hot. Gilbert lost the ability to fully understand his actions and to reason. As a result, Gilbert took off his clothes and began running into and out of traffic on the campus of the University. At some point during his reaction, Gilbert went to the University's police station and began hitting the windows. Gilbert started to walk away from the building but came back and started hitting the door of the station. An officer came out of the station through the door with his weapon drawn. After the officer called to Gilbert, Gilbert started to advance toward the police station and "immediately began acting in an erratic manner." When Gilbert was a few feet from the officer ("and for unexplainable reasons"), the officer shot Gilbert. The trial court entered an order denying the Chief of University Police's motion to dismiss. The Chief filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to reverse the trial court. The Supreme Court found that the Chief had a clear legal right to the dismissal of counts one and three of the complaint against him. Therefore, the Court granted his petition. View "Collar v. University of South Alabama" on Justia Law

U.S. Bank National Association and U.S. Bancorp sought a writ of mandamus ordering the Jefferson Circuit Court to dismiss the malicious-prosecution case filed against them by Sterne, Agee & Leach, Inc. that arose out of a lawsuit prosecuted by U.S. Bank entirely in the State of Washington. The principle of "lex loci delicti" requires that the law of the state in which the antecedent lawsuit was terminated in favor of the complaining party governs a malicious-prosecution claim. Thus, Washington law governed Sterne Agee's claim of malicious prosecution. Accordingly, U.S. Bank's petition for writ for mandamus was granted, and the circuit court was ordered to dismiss Sterne Agee's malicious-prosecution case.View "Sterne, Agee & Leach, Inc. v. U.S. Bank National Association" on Justia Law

Defendants Dr. Gerald Hodge and Tombigbee Healthcare Authority d/b/a Bryan W. Whitfield Memorial Hospital separately petitioned for a writ of mandamus directing the Marengo Circuit Court to dismiss the claims asserted against them by Gertha and David Tucker. In 2012, Gertha sued Dr. Hodge, Tombigbee, and others, alleging claims under the Alabama Medical Liability Act. Gertha alleged that Dr. Hodge performed a hysterectomy on her in 2005; that Dr. Hodge negligently failed to account for and to remove a surgical hemostat clamp from her abdomen; she did not discover the presence of the clamp until 2011 when she first started experiencing pain; and that as the proximate result of the negligent failure to remove the clamp she was made to suffer pain, life- threatening medical problems, including severe infections, and mental anguish. "Although the situation with which [the Supreme Court was] presented here [did] not involve the statute-of-limitations defense in the context of fictitious-party practice and the relation-back doctrine, the defendants . . . [were] faced with the extraordinary circumstance of having to further litigate this matter after having demonstrated from the face of the plaintiff's complaint a clear legal right to have the action against them dismissed based on the four-year period of repose found in 6-5-482(a). Having concluded that an appeal pursuant to Rule 5 or an appeal from a final judgment following further litigation is not an adequate remedy in this case, [the Court] conclude[d], based on the particular circumstances of this case, that mandamus is necessary in order to avoid the injustice that would result from the unavailability of any other adequate remedy."View "Tucker, Jr. v. Tombigbee Healthcare Authority " on Justia Law

Michelin North America, Inc. ("Michelin"), petitioned the Supreme Court for writs of mandamus to direct the Mobile Circuit Court: (1) to vacate its order allowing plaintiff Betty Brown to conduct an on-site inspection of Michelin's Ardmore, Oklahoma, tire-manufacturing facility (case no. 1121330); and (2) to vacate its order compelling Michelin to answer certain interrogatories and to comply with certain document requests propounded by Brown (case no. 1121341). Brown and her husband, George were traveling in Mobile when the tire mounted on the rear passenger side of their 1992 Ford Explorer sport-utility vehicle failed, causing an automobile accident in which George was killed and Brown was injured. Upon review of the circuit court record, the Supreme Court granted Michelin's petition in case no. 1121330 and granted the petition in part in case no. 1121341. View "Brown v. Michelin North America, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Deborah Voltz, Jasmin Voltz, and Princess Turner appealed a circuit court order dismissing their action against Cameron Dyess. Plaintiffs filed their complaint against Dyess alleging Dyess had negligently and wantonly caused an automobile accident in which the plaintiffs were injured. Plaintiffs attempted service of process on Dyess by certified mail. This service of process was returned unclaimed. A few days later, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. A few months later, plaintiffs attempted to serve the amended complaint on Dyess, this time through personal service by the sheriff. A month after that, without giving notice to plaintiffs, the trial court entered an order dismissing the case for lack of service. On the same date, plaintiffs filed a motion to alter, amend, or vacate the order of dismissal. After making their motion, the sheriff's summons was returned indicating nonservice. The trial court denied plaintiffs' motion to alter, and dismissed the case. Plaintiffs appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding the trial court erred when it dismissed the action without giving at least 14 days' notice to the plaintiffs that their case was subject to dismissal for failure to effect service. View "Voltz v. Dyess " on Justia Law

Larry Webber petitioned for a writ of mandamus to direct the circuit court to vacate his order denying his motion to dismiss an action filed against him by Donald Sherrod, Helen Sherrod, and State Farm Fire and Casualty Company ("State Farm"). The Sherrods hired Webber to paint inside their house. The Sherrods and State Farm alleged that Webber and his employees did not cover objects in the house before painting and that overspraying damaged the walls, floors, countertops, fixtures, appliances, and a number of items of personal property in the house. Donald Sherrod sued Webber in the small-claims court. Helen was not a party to the small-claims-court action. Sherrod won, and Webber paid the judgment. The Sherrods sued Webbr again, this time in Circuit Court - the only difference this time was that Helen was added as a party. In her affidavit filed for the circuit court action, Helen Sherrod stated that State Farm paid them "for damage[] to the flooring, walls and interior of the home. State Farm did not pay us for the damage[] to any of the personal property because the damage[] to the personal property [was] not covered by our policy." In response to the circuit court action, Webber moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting that the action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata and the prohibition against double recovery. The circuit court denied Webber's motion to dismiss without explaining its reasons. The Supreme Court concluded that res judicata barred the Sherrods and State Farm from bringing the circuit-court action. Accordingly, the circuit court should have granted Webber's motion for a summary judgment on all the claims against him. View "In re: Sherrod et al. v. Webber" on Justia Law

O.S. and J.A.S. petitioned for a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Civil Appeals' decision affirming the judgment of the circuit court in favor of E.S. setting aside a final judgment of adoption by the Probate Court of Walker County The Court granted certiorari review solely to determine whether the circuit court had jurisdiction to consider E.S.'s independent action seeking to set aside the probate court's judgment of adoption. Concluding that the circuit court did not have jurisdiction, the Supreme Court reversed the circuit court order and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "In re: O.S. and J.A.S. v. E.S." on Justia Law

Charles Simmons was convicted of a Class A misdemeanor. He appealed the conviction to the Lowndes Circuit Court for a trial de novo. He was convicted and appealed the circuit court's judgment to the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the judgment and remanded the case. The State petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari review of the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The mother of the victim filed a complaint, stating that Simmons, a teacher, had had sexual contact with her daughter, who at the time the sexual contact occurred was under 19 years old. It was undisputed that the mother's complaint was not included in the file forwarded to the circuit court by the district court clerk. An information, however, was filed in the circuit court by the district attorney after Simmons had filed his notice of appeal for a trial de novo. Before the trial in the circuit court commenced, Simmons moved to dismiss the case against him because, he said, the original charging instrument from the district court, the mother's complaint, was not being used to prosecute his case, and he objected to being prosecuted on the information filed by the district attorney subsequent to his conviction in the district court. The circuit court denied his motion, and trial proceeded. Simmons was then convicted. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that, "[i]n the absence of a proper charging instrument, the circuit court could not exercise jurisdiction over Simmons's appeal," and that the circuit court's judgment was void and due to be set aside, and it reversed the judgment and remanded the case. The Supreme Court concluded after its review that the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in holding that the circuit court could not exercise its jurisdiction or that the circuit court's jurisdiction did not attach because the charging instrument from the district court was not used to prosecute Simmons's case in the circuit court. View "Alabama v. Simmons" on Justia Law