Justia Alabama Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Garfield W. Ivey, Jr. appealed circuit court judgment in favor of James C. King. In 2007, King sued Dollar & Eads, P.C., Rhonda Dollar, and Phillip Eads ("Dollar & Eads"), Peggy G. Northcutt a/k/a Peggy G. Fannin ("Northcutt"), who was employed by Dollar & Eads, P.C., and Al Northcutt, asserting various claims related to an alleged embezzlement of funds belonging to dissolved entities in which King and Ivey were members. King and Ivey entered into a settlement agreement with Dollar & Eads, which settled King's and Ivey's respective claims against Dollar & Eads for $627,684. King and Ivey agreed to divide the settlement amount between them based on their ownership interests in the various dissolved entities. A dispute over the split of the settlement proceeds was the subject of this appeal: Ivey claimed King was entitled to a certain amount based on Ivey's computation of King's ownership interest in each of the dissolved entities. But the parties' disagreement over how to split the settlement was the subject of a series of motions and circuit court orders in an attempt to resolve the dispute. The last order from the circuit court denying Ivey's motion to alter, amend or vacate an April 11, 2012 judgment was denied, and that was appealed to the Supreme Court. Upon review, the Court found no error or abuse of discretion in denying Ivey's motion. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment. View "Ivey, Jr. v. King " on Justia Law

Felice McGathey appealed a circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Brookwood Health Services, Inc., d/b/a Brookwood Medical Center, and Scott Appell, M.D., in her medical malpractice action; she also challenged the trial court's order denying her motion for leave to amend her complaint to substitute real parties for fictitiously named defendants. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, and reversed in part. McGathey suffered a severe burn on the little finger of her left hand, permanent disfigurement and impaired mobility following left-shoulder arthroscopy, subacromial decompression, and distal clavicle resection. A Spider Limb Positioner was used in the surgery. A part of the positioner was sterilized, but was not given a chance to cool down before it was used in the surgery. And because defendants allowed the hot part to be used on McGathey during the surgery, she suffered her injuries. Based on a review of the record, the Supreme Court concluded that McGathey produced substantial evidence of negligence for one of the Brookwood employees and reversed the grant of summary judgment in that defendant's favor. The Court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Dr. Appell. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "McGathey v. Brookwood Health Services, Inc." on Justia Law

South Alabama Gas District (SAG) appealed a circuit court order enjoining it from selling liquified petroleum ("LP") gas and related appliances outside its member cities. Four individual taxpayers and Fletcher Smith Butane Co., Inc., sued SAG seeking both an injunction and damages for SAG's alleged violation of 11-50-266, as made applicable to gas districts by 11-50-399. The trial court bifurcated the claim for injunctive relief and the damages claim, and held a bench trial on the claim for injunctive relief. SAG argued that the notice and buy-out provisions did not apply to it because LP gas is not a "manufactured gas" within the terms of the statute. The trial court found otherwise and enjoined SAG from selling LP gas if it did not comply with 11-50-266. The circuit court found that the taxpayers lacked standing to challenge SAG's appliance sales. With regard to Fletcher Smith, SAG argued (among other things), that Fletcher Smith lacked standing because it sold its assets and was no longer engaging in the LP gas business. As proof, SAG cited Fletcher Smith's to "Requests for Admissions of Fact." After review of the circuit court record and the admissions cited by SAG in its appeal brief, the Supreme Court found that Fletcher Smith's claims for prospective relief became moot. "Because mootness goes to justiciability, this Court will not consider the merits of a claim that is moot." View "South Alabama Gas District v. Knight" on Justia Law

Precision Gear Company, Precision Gear LLC, and General Metal Heat Treating, Inc. were granted permission to appeal an interlocutory order denying their motion to dismiss the third-party claims against them filed by Continental Motors, Inc. The trial court certified a question to the Supreme Court of whether, in a suit for non-contractual indemnification arising from an accident and alleged damage that occurred out of state, Alabama's six year statute of limitation for implied contract actions controlled because the foreign jurisdiction's law considered its common law and statutory claims for indemnity as claims based upon contract implied in law or quasi-contract, or whether Alabama's two year statute of limitation for tort actions controlled. Upon review, the Alabama Supreme Court concluded that Alabama's two-year statute of limitations applied in this case and that Continental Motors' claims against the gear manufacturers were time-barred. View "Precision Gear Co. v. Continental Motors, Inc. " on Justia Law

Defendant Reginald Tyrone Lightfoot challenged his conviction for trafficking in cocaine and his sentence of 15 years' imprisonment. The Supreme Court granted certiorari review to determine, as a matter of first impression, whether an Apprendi error in applying a sentence enhancement was automatically harmless when the erroneous application of the enhancement did not increase the sentence beyond the statutory maximum for the underlying offense. The Court held that it was not, and reversed the Court of Criminal Appeals. View "Lightfoot v. Alabama " on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that Defendant's Rule 32 petition should not have been dismissed on the grounds that his claim for relief under Rule 32.1 lacked allegations to negate the preclusive bars of Rule 32.1(a)(3) and (5). Defendant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. He filed a Rule 32 petition for post-conviction relief, alleging in part that the State failed to disclose exculpatory evidence. The State asserted in response that defendant's claims were procedurally barred by Rule 32.2(a)(3) and (5) because defendant could have, but did not, raise the issue at trial. The trial court dismissed defendant's application and the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Beckworth v. Alabama" on Justia Law

Luther Pate, IV sought review of the Court of Criminal Appeals' decision to affirm his conviction for menacing. In a matter of first impression, the issues before the Supreme Court were: (1) whether lawfully arming oneself was a "physical action" as defined in the state menacing statute; and (2) whether defense-of-premises was applicable in this case. Finding that the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in its analysis of the menacing statute, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court held that its reversal on the menacing issue pretermitted discussion of the defense-of-premises issue. View "Pate IV v. City of Tuscaloosa" on Justia Law

The O'Neals appealed a circuit court order that granted Bama Exterminating Company, Inc.'s motion to compel arbitration. The dispute arose shortly after the O'Neals closed on the purchase of a house. As part of the loan disclosures, Bama Exterminating prepared an inspection report that the house was termite-free. The report did disclose a prior infestation at the house's carport from several years earlier. Mr. O'Neal signed the report right below the arbitration provision. Two weeks after closing, the O'Neals discovered "bugs" in the walls. They called Bama Exterminating who confirmed that the bugs were termites. The O'Neals then sued Bama Exterminating alleging negligence, wantonness and breach of contract. Bama Exterminating answered their complaint with the affirmative defense of the arbitration clause in the inspection report. The parties moved toward trial in the circuit court. When mediation failed, Bama Exterminating moved the court to compel arbitration. The O'Neals argued that the exterminator waived its right to compel arbitration by its participation in the litigation process. The Supreme Court found the exterminator did not waive its right to compel arbitration, and therefore affirmed the circuit court's decision to grant the company's motion. View "O'Neal v. Bama Exterminating Company, Inc. " on Justia Law

Plaintiff Fernando Rodriguez-Flores appealed the dismissal of his claims of retaliatory discharge and fraud brought against his former employer, U.S. Coatings, Inc. He worked as a painter. He stated that he suffered on the job injuries from paint-fume inhalation and other maladies. He sued the employer for workmans' compensation benefits, asserting retaliatory discharge and fraud based on his physical complaints and subsequent treatment. The trial court dismissed his complaint. Finding that the trial court did not err with regard to dismissing Plaintiff's fraud claim, the Supreme Court affirmed to that regard. However, the Court concluded the trial court erred with regard to the retaliatory-discharge claim. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Rodriguez-Flores v. U.S. Coatings, Inc. " on Justia Law

Plaintiff Stanford Isbell sued M&J Materials, Inc. seeking workmans' compensation benefits. He also sought compensatory and punitive damages based on his claim of a retaliatory discharge. M&J denied liability, specifically averring that Plaintiff's employment was terminated for violating a workplace prohibition of carrying firearms. The parties settled their differences with regards to the workmans' compensation claims, leaving the retaliatory discharge to be heard by the trial court. The jury found in Plaintiff's favor, but the Court of Appeals reversed. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded the appellate court erred in its analysis of the facts in record and the applicable law. Accordingly, the appellate court's judgment was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "M & J Materials, Inc. v. Isbell" on Justia Law