Truman McGill Hobbs

This case involved a defendant charged as a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition after police executed a no-knock search warrant at a motel room and seized those items along with drugs. The defendant moved to suppress both his statement and the physical evidence, arguing that the warrant affidavit—based on an anonymous tip and a confidential informant's report of seeing cocaine and a handgun—failed to establish probable cause. The magistrate judge recommended denying suppression of the statement but granting it for the physical evidence, but the district court rejected that recommendation after de novo review. The court held that the affidavit provided a fair probability that contraband would be found under the totality-of-the-circumstances test from Illinois v. Gates and, alternatively, that the officers acted in good-faith reliance on the warrant under United States v. Leon, so both motions were denied.

criminal law

The case involved a First Amendment challenge by the International Caucus of Labor Committees and its members against the City of Montgomery, Alabama, over a city policy banning the placement of tables on public sidewalks. Plaintiffs had used small tables on grassy areas beside sidewalks to distribute political literature, recruit members, and engage with passersby near post offices, but police ordered them to remove the tables or face arrest after complaints from postal staff. The court found that the tables did not obstruct pedestrian traffic and that the city failed to demonstrate how the complete ban served a significant government interest in a narrowly tailored manner. Applying intermediate scrutiny to this content-neutral restriction on protected expressive activity, the court held the policy unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and issued a declaratory judgment for the plaintiffs.

free speechcivil rights

This case involved a negligence claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act by parents who alleged that military medical providers failed to offer or document alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) testing during the mother's 1988 pregnancy, resulting in the birth of a child with spina bifida myelomeningocele. The court, applying Alabama's wrongful birth doctrine from Keel v. Banach, found that the standard of care required offering and documenting the optional AFP test within the 16-20 week window and that this was not done. It rejected the government's claim that the mother had refused the test, citing the absence of required documentation and other evidence, and therefore held the United States liable for damages flowing from the breach. The decision awarded damages to the parents and, by stipulation, to a sibling, while noting limits on certain claims like sibling loss of consortium.

torts & liabilityhealthcare

This case is a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 brought by the family of David Dolihite, a 15-year-old placed in the Eufaula Adolescent Center by juvenile court order due to behavioral problems, alleging that center staff violated his constitutional rights by failing to adequately address his documented suicidal ideations, self-mutilation, and related mental health needs, accompanied by pendent state claims for negligence and wantonness. The defendants moved for summary judgment on grounds of qualified and substantive immunity. The court denied the motions as to the federal claims, concluding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the defendants exercised professional judgment in response to the documented risks, but granted the motions as to the state claims.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

The case involved ambulance service providers in Alabama challenging a state Medicaid regulation that limited reimbursement to 80% of reasonable costs for services provided to qualified Medicare beneficiaries (QMBs), who are low-income individuals eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid. Plaintiffs argued that federal law under 42 U.S.C. § 1396a required states to pay 100% of reasonable costs for these beneficiaries, similar to coverage under Medicare Part B supplemental insurance. The court held that the Alabama Medicaid plan, as approved by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, did not violate the statute because it permissively allows but does not mandate full payment of coinsurance amounts for outpatient services to QMBs. The decision rested on statutory interpretation of the Medicaid Act's provisions distinguishing mandatory inpatient hospital payments from optional coverage for other Part B services.

healthcarefederal power

This case involved a class action by recipients of Alabama's ASSETS pilot program benefits, who challenged the state's practice of recouping overissued food stamp benefits by reducing their monthly allotments by 15% even when the overissuance resulted from agency administrative error or inadvertent household error. The court certified the class and, on cross-motions for summary judgment, ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. It held that the Secretary of Agriculture exceeded his authority under the Federal Food Stamp Act by granting waivers that allowed recoupment beyond the statutory limits protecting recipients. The decision was based on the plain language of the statutes limiting recoupment to 10% for inadvertent errors and prohibiting waivers that impair participants' rights.

federal powercivil rights

The case involved parents of a four-year-old child with Down’s Syndrome appealing an administrative hearing officer’s denial of their request under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for the Montgomery County Board of Education to provide related services including speech, physical, and occupational therapy plus transportation, even though the parents had unilaterally placed the child in a private program. After reviewing the administrative record, supplementary evidence, and applicable federal regulations under a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard while giving due weight to the administrative findings, the court held that a local education agency satisfies its IDEA obligations by offering a free appropriate public education at a public facility and is not required to furnish related services to a child placed by parents in a private school. The decision rested on regulations mandating only equitable participation opportunities, which can be met by services at public or neutral sites rather than on private-school premises.

civil rightsfederal power

This case involves a Federal Tort Claims Act suit by Ola Mae Watkins against the United States for knee injuries she sustained when she fell into an unmarked excavation hole at Gunter Air Force Base while walking to her janitorial job at the NCO Club; Watkins, employed by an independent contractor, had requested but was denied a key to an alternate entrance to avoid the construction hazards. The United States moved for summary judgment, contending it owed no duty regarding an obvious danger and that a prior state-court judgment finding Watkins contributorily negligent barred relitigation. The court denied the motion, holding that collateral estoppel did not apply because the United States was not a party to the state action and that genuine issues of material fact remained on the scope of the landowner's duty under Alabama law and on the wantonness claim.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved black voters in Alabama suing state officials over the at-large election system with numbered positions for circuit and district judges, alleging it diluted black voting strength and violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act as well as the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. The court ruled that the election system did not deny black voters an equal opportunity to participate in the political process or elect judges of their choice, and it did not violate the Constitution. Applying the Gingles prerequisites and totality-of-circumstances test, the court found insufficient evidence of vote dilution or racially discriminatory purpose in the judicial election structure, which had long been established statewide.

electionscivil rights

This case concerned a products liability action brought by Brenda Toole and her husband against Dr. Richmond McClintock and Baxter Healthcare Corporation after silicone gel breast implants ruptured following a closed capsulotomy procedure, resulting in pain, distortion, granulomas, and multiple subsequent surgeries. A jury found in favor of the plaintiffs against Baxter and awarded $350,000 in compensatory damages and $5,000,000 in punitive damages. Baxter moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, a new trial, or remittitur, while the plaintiffs sought to increase punitive damages and challenged the constitutionality of Alabama Code provisions limiting or governing punitive damages awards. The court applied the Boeing Co. v. Shipman standard to review the trial evidence, including expert testimony on the implants' fragility and the adequacy of warnings, and addressed the constitutionality of statutory caps and procedures for punitive damages under Alabama law.

torts & liabilityhealthcareprocedure

In this case, plaintiffs sued defendants in Alabama state court for fraud, breach of contract, and Truth in Lending Act violations stemming from a home improvement agreement and related mortgage financing. One defendant removed the action to federal court citing the federal claim, but the other defendants did not join the removal notice and no alternative basis such as diversity was timely asserted. The court granted plaintiffs' motion to remand, holding that removal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 must be strictly construed, all defendants are required to join absent narrow exceptions that did not apply here, and the presence of pendent state claims did not cure the procedural defects.

procedure

The case involved a lawsuit by the Braun family against Soldier of Fortune Magazine and its parent company for the wrongful death of Richard Braun and injuries to his son Michael, who were attacked by a contract killer hired after responding to a "gun for hire" advertisement in the magazine. The jury found the defendants negligent for publishing an ad that posed an unreasonable risk of violent crime and awarded $2 million in compensatory damages on the wrongful death claim, plus $375,000 in compensatory and $10 million in punitive damages (later remitted to $2 million) on the personal injury claim. The court denied the defendants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, applying the Boeing standard and finding substantial evidence that the ad's language, the magazine's editing process, and the high volume of criminal responses it generated supported liability. The decision emphasized that foreseeable criminal acts do not break the chain of causation in negligence claims under applicable Georgia law.

torts & liabilitycriminal law

The case involved Georgia real estate professionals and their association challenging Alabama statutes and regulations governing real estate broker and salesperson licenses, which imposed education, course location, and 'place of business' requirements in Alabama. Plaintiffs argued these rules violated a prior 1987 settlement agreement, the Privileges and Immunities Clause, and the Commerce Clause by discriminating against non-residents. After a hearing, the court held that the provisions did not breach the settlement or Privileges and Immunities Clause. However, it found that the requirements for fifteen semester hours of Alabama-approved courses (or prior in-state salesperson experience), an eight-week in-state course for sales licenses, and maintaining a qualifying broker or place of business in Alabama violated the Commerce Clause by unduly burdening interstate commerce. The court granted a permanent injunction declaring those specific requirements unconstitutional.

business & regulatoryfederal power

In Braun v. Soldier of Fortune Magazine, the sons of Richard Braun sued the magazine and its parent company after their father was murdered by an assassin hired through a personal advertisement the magazine had published that read 'GUN FOR HIRE' and offered services including 'all jobs considered.' The court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the wrongful death and injury claims. It reasoned that the ad's language could reasonably be seen as proposing criminal activity such as murder for hire, imposing a duty on the publisher to screen and reject it given the gravity of potential harm versus the low social utility of such ads, and that the First Amendment does not shield commercial speech proposing illegal transactions.

torts & liabilityfree speechcriminal law

The case involved Beverly Scott suing United of Omaha Life Insurance Company after it denied death benefits on her husband's life insurance policy following his death in a 1987 automobile accident, with claims for breach of contract, fraud, and bad faith refusal to pay. The central issue was whether the policy had lapsed for nonpayment of the September premium after the insured left military service and changed his payment method, or whether the insurer's September 21, 1987 letter had extended the payment deadline. Applying Alabama law, which disfavors insurance forfeitures and recognizes implied waivers through an insurer's conduct, the court held that the letter created an implied waiver by giving the insured until October 16 to pay and thereby keeping the policy in force at the time of death. Summary judgment was granted to the plaintiff on the breach of contract claim and to the defendant on the fraud and bad faith claims.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

In this 1989 diversity case, the plaintiff sought to amend her complaint to add her spouse as a party plaintiff asserting a $5,000 loss-of-consortium claim arising from the same car accident. The court denied the motion to amend, ruling that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the spouse's claim. The core reasoning was that, under Supreme Court precedents such as Zahn and Kroger interpreting 28 U.S.C. § 1332, each party must independently satisfy the jurisdictional-amount requirement when the claims are separate and distinct; Alabama law treats loss-of-consortium claims as independent, so pendent-party jurisdiction could not be exercised despite the shared facts.

proceduretorts & liability

This case concerns a lawsuit by an environmental group seeking to prevent Alabama state officials from issuing wastewater discharge permits to a gas company under standards less strict than federal regulations under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The plaintiff claimed federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and the FWPCA's savings clause, later adding the Supremacy Clause. The court determined it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the FWPCA does not create a federal cause of action for challenging state-issued permits, which are governed by state law, and the Supremacy Clause does not independently provide such a right.

environmentfederal powerprocedure

In Mathews v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co., the plaintiffs, attorneys who represented an injured party in obtaining a tort settlement, sued the client's medical insurer for a share of attorney fees after the insurer claimed reimbursement for over $114,000 in medical expenses it had advanced. The court decided that the insurer must pay a proportionate attorney fee (38 percent, or $43,615.07 plus interest) from the settlement fund under the common fund doctrine. The core reasoning was that Alabama law applies this equitable doctrine whenever an attorney's efforts create a fund that directly benefits a non-client party entitled to reimbursement, even if the insurance policy grants only reimbursement rights rather than formal subrogation, to ensure the benefiting party bears its share of the recovery costs.

proceduretorts & liability

In Thompson v. American States Insurance, an underinsured driver sued his own insurance carrier for uninsured motorist coverage under Alabama law after settling with the at-fault driver's estate for policy limits and later facing a wrongful death counter-suit that was resolved in his favor. The insurer moved for summary judgment on four grounds: claim preclusion from the prior state case, the lack of a judgment against the underinsured motorist, the fact that the policy did not extend liability coverage to the rental vehicle involved, and breach of the policy's no-consent-to-settlement clause. The court denied the motion, holding that the prior dismissal was not on the merits of negligence, Alabama law permits recovery without a prior judgment against the tortfeasor, and a factual dispute existed as to whether the settlement prejudiced the insurer's subrogation rights.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involves a Title VII class action lawsuit filed by a plaintiff against the Madison County Board of Education alleging a pattern of racial discrimination in the hiring, selection, and promotion of principals and supervisory personnel. The plaintiff, a resident of Madison County in the Northern District of Alabama, brought the suit in the Middle District of Alabama despite all relevant events, witnesses, records, and parties being located in Madison County. The court granted the defendant's motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of Alabama, exercising its discretion under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The core reasoning was that the convenience of the parties and witnesses, along with the interests of justice, strongly favored transfer, as there were no contacts with the Middle District and the Title VII venue provisions permit such transfers considering the defendant's principal office location.

civil rightsprocedure