James N. Bloodworth

The case Ex Parte Holderfield arose from a petition filed by Michael Holderfield seeking review by the Alabama Supreme Court of a lower court decision in his dispute with the City of Birmingham. The Supreme Court issued a brief order denying the writ, with four justices concurring. This denial left the prior ruling in favor of the city in place without further appellate consideration by the state's highest court. The opinion provided no additional explanation or analysis of the underlying claims.

criminal lawprocedure

This case arose from a fatal 1977 automobile accident in Alabama involving a Volkswagen that left the road at a dangerous curve, killing all occupants. The administratrix of one victim's estate sued the administrator of Donald Gore's estate for wrongful death, claiming wanton conduct by the driver. A jury awarded the plaintiff $18,500, but the Alabama Supreme Court reversed and remanded. The court held there was not even a scintilla of evidence to support a finding of wantonness, as the record lacked proof on key elements including who was driving, the vehicle's speed, whether the driver was intoxicated at the time, or why the car left the highway. Any conclusion of wantonness would rest on impermissible speculation rather than legitimate inferences from the evidence.

torts & liability

In Shaw v. City of Lipscomb, the plaintiff, a business invitee, sued the city after slipping and falling on sweet gum balls or twigs while descending a slight incline in a municipal park during a Fourth of July barbecue event, resulting in a compound leg fracture. Following a jury mistrial, the trial court granted the city's motion for summary judgment, which the appellate court affirmed. The court held that the city owed the plaintiff a duty of ordinary and reasonable care to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition but was not an insurer of invitees' safety, and the natural presence of items like twigs and sweet gum balls under trees in a park did not amount to a breach or create actionable negligence. The plaintiff failed to present even a scintilla of evidence that the city had violated its duty, distinguishing the case from slip-and-fall precedents involving foreign objects in stores.

torts & liability

The case involved the conviction of petitioner under Alabama's Death Penalty Statute for intentionally killing John Ezra Brown during a robbery. The Alabama Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Court of Criminal Appeals' affirmance of the conviction. After reviewing the opinion and record, the court determined that all issues raised by the petitioner were correctly resolved by the lower appellate court. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment upholding the conviction.

criminal law

In this case, subcontractor Sippial Electric sued general contractor Isaac Bracy for unpaid amounts on a fire safety installation contract at a Veterans Administration hospital, adding a fraud claim based on alleged false promises of payment, while Bracy filed a counterclaim. After a jury verdict favoring Sippial, the trial court entered judgment against Bracy (reduced to $44,709), and the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that allowing a late amendment to add the fraud count caused no prejudice since it relied on previously pled facts, that character evidence regarding Bracy's financial issues and judgments was properly admitted for impeachment of his testimony, and that the reduced verdict was supported by evidence with the plaintiff's implied consent shown by lack of objection or cross-appeal.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involved a subcontractor suing a general contractor and its surety in Alabama state court for unpaid amounts on a federal construction project bond. The surety argued that the Miller Act required such claims to be brought exclusively in federal district court and moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, but the trial court entered judgment against it anyway. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the state court had no jurisdiction over the surety because the Miller Act expressly vests exclusive jurisdiction in federal court, rendering any judgment against the surety void.

procedurefederal power

This case involved a dispute over the priority of liens on property owned by Guy and Hazel Potter. Citibanc obtained and recorded a judgment lien against the Potters in 1976; the Potters later acquired title to land from their son and executed construction mortgages to Alabama Exchange Bank, Tuskegee Federal Savings and Loan Association, and Tuskegee Lumber Company, while also claiming a homestead exemption. The trial court subordinated Citibanc's lien to the mortgages and granted only a limited homestead exemption, but the appellate court reversed in part. It held that the recorded judgment lien takes priority over the later mortgages because they were not purchase-money mortgages and subsequent mortgagees are charged with notice of the lien, while affirming that the lien is subordinate to the Potters' $2,000 statutory homestead exemption. The court remanded for entry of a judgment establishing the order of priorities accordingly.

property

This case arose when plaintiff DeLoach, a police officer, was injured in a motorcycle accident caused by Mayer Electric employee Alphonso Wells, who allegedly became intoxicated at an after-hours company open house where Mayer Electric and caterer Britling provided alcoholic beverages. DeLoach sued both defendants under Alabama's Dram Shop Act and common-law negligence, claiming the providers had illegally furnished alcohol to Wells. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, and the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that the Dram Shop Act did not apply because there was no "sale" of alcohol (no consideration exchanged) and thus no disposition "contrary to the provisions of law." It also declined to recognize a common-law negligence claim for distributing alcohol, adhering to the longstanding rule from King v. Henkie that the drinker's own act is the proximate cause of injury.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case concerned a 1969 promissory note executed by the defendant to a bank, later negotiated to the plaintiff, on which no payments were made; the plaintiff sued in 1978, and the defendant raised the six-year statute of limitations while the plaintiff argued the ten-year period for sealed instruments applied due to the preprinted "(SEAL)" opposite the signature line. The trial court initially granted summary judgment to the plaintiff but, on reconsideration, granted it to the defendant and dismissed the case. The appellate court affirmed, holding that under longstanding Alabama precedent interpreting the 1839 statute, an instrument is sealed only if the body of the document recites an intention to make it a specialty; the mere presence of "(SEAL)" is insufficient, so the six-year limit applied and barred the claim. The holder-in-due-course issue was therefore moot.

procedure

The case centered on a dispute over seven demand promissory notes issued by Trans-South-Rent-A-Car, Inc. (TSRAC) to Edward and Margaret Wein, along with related claims of fraud arising from Michael Wein's sale of 70% of TSRAC's stock to Glenn Baldwin. TSRAC and Baldwin alleged that the Weins and Michael Wein made material misrepresentations about the corporation's outstanding shareholder debts in the stock sale agreement and financial statements. After a jury trial, verdicts were returned in favor of the Weins on the notes and against TSRAC and Baldwin on their counterclaim and third-party fraud claims. The trial court denied TSRAC's motion for a new trial, and the appellate court affirmed, reasoning that the evidence on the fraud issue was conflicting, that jury verdicts are presumed correct when supported by the record, and that the trial court did not err in submitting the factual disputes to the jury.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case concerned whether the Birmingham City Council could hold closed meetings to interview candidates for board and council appointments under Alabama's sunshine laws, which generally require public meetings of municipal bodies. The Birmingham News sought a permanent injunction after being excluded from two such meetings, leading the trial court to enjoin secret sessions except when a person's character or good name was involved. On appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the statutory exception for character or good name encompasses personal interviews of prospective appointees to allow full and candid discussion without forcing underground meetings. The court interpreted the relevant statutes, including Code 1975 § 13-5-1 and the Mayor-Council Act, to permit closed sessions for such interviews while requiring openness for final actions, and remanded for entry of a conforming judgment.

procedure

This case involved a negligence claim arising from a 1974 automobile accident in which plaintiff Guthrie alleged that defendant McCauley negligently lost control of his car, causing a collision that injured her. After a trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of McCauley, and the trial court denied Guthrie's motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence. On appeal, the court affirmed the denial, explaining that jury verdicts are presumed correct—especially after denial of a new-trial motion—and will not be disturbed unless the evidence clearly shows the verdict was wrong and unjust, noting that the facts here were disputed, including Guthrie's own testimony about her ability to stop.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a defendant convicted of robbery in Alabama who challenged his conviction on the grounds that he was denied his right to a speedy trial due to a multi-year delay in bringing him to trial while he was incarcerated in Florida. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded the case, finding that the delay violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights. Applying the four factors from Barker v. Wingo, the court determined that the length of the delay exceeded three years, the state failed to make a good faith effort to extradite the defendant despite knowing his location, the defendant asserted his right by filing a motion to quash the indictment, and the delay caused prejudice by affecting his parole considerations and prison conditions.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a defendant convicted of assault with intent to murder who raised an insanity defense and was examined before trial by a psychiatrist at his request; the state called that psychiatrist as a witness in its case-in-chief to testify that the defendant was competent and knew right from wrong. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that Alabama law provided no statutory privilege for communications with psychiatrists (only psychologists under Code 1975, § 34-26-2) and that offering testimony from another mental-health professional waived any privilege. The Supreme Court of Alabama reversed, ruling that the psychiatrist's testimony was privileged and that the defendant had not waived the privilege by calling a psychologist at trial.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a boundary dispute in which the appellant sought to quiet title to land enclosed by a fence erected by the appellees after a survey. The appellant had purchased a building from her aunt in 1961 and later obtained a second deed describing the disputed area after the fence was built, then claimed ownership by adverse possession. The trial court adopted the appellees' survey and fixed the boundary accordingly, and the appellate court affirmed. The court reasoned that the appellant failed to establish the elements of adverse possession, including claim of right or color of title, openness and notoriety of possession, and continuity for the required ten-year period, and that the trial court's findings based on ore tenus testimony were not clearly erroneous.

property

In Guess v. Snyder, the plaintiff as estate administratrix sued Dr. Snyder for medical malpractice, claiming his negligence during an esophagoscopy proximately caused the patient's death. The trial court granted the doctor's motion for summary judgment after the plaintiff received multiple extensions but failed to file timely and sufficient opposing evidence, relying instead on an unsworn hearsay letter and a late affidavit. The appellate court affirmed, reasoning that the defendant's interrogatory answers and supporting affidavit demonstrated no genuine issue of material fact at the time of submission, the plaintiff's late filings could not be considered, and the plaintiff had not met the burden to produce even a scintilla of contrary evidence.

torts & liabilityprocedurehealthcare

The case involved heirs to property (appellants Menefee and Sheets) suing neighboring landowners (appellees Lowery) to enjoin them from blocking two roadways crossing the Lowery property that the appellants claimed had become a public road or subject to a prescriptive easement through decades of open use. The trial court ruled for the appellees after finding the appellants' evidence insufficient to prove the required elements, and the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that the appellants had not shown adverse use under a claim of right for a private easement or that the roadways met the criteria for public dedication by prescription (open, defined, through reclaimed land, and in continuous public use without hindrance for 20 years), as the evidence was conflicting and mostly indicated private use by the predecessors in title. Deference was given to the trial court's ore tenus findings on the disputed facts, including witness testimony and maps.

propertyprocedure

The case involved a declaratory judgment action by Bailey Wood Products, Inc. to determine its liability to an injured employee under the Workmen's Compensation Act and to identify which party—Zurich American Insurance Company or its agent Elmer Tallant Agency—would provide coverage or indemnify Bailey. The trial court ruled that Zurich was obligated to afford coverage or its equivalent due to the agent's apparent authority, while Tallant Agency was required to indemnify Zurich for exceeding its actual authority under the agency contract. On appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed Zurich's liability to Bailey based on the agent's apparent authority to bind the insurer despite limitations in the schedule of binding authority, but reversed the portion holding Tallant directly liable to provide coverage to Bailey. The court reasoned that the agent's prior knowledge of declinations and the risk's classification required prior approval, which was not obtained, yet the insurer remained bound to the insured while entitled to indemnity from the agent. The matter was remanded for correction of the judgment.

business & regulatorylabor & employment

The case involved a petition for a writ of certiorari in which the petitioner argued that an inventory search of an impounded vehicle violated the Fourth Amendment, asserting a conflict with the Alabama Supreme Court's 1973 decision in Daniels v. State. That earlier ruling had listed six exceptions to the warrant requirement but did not include inventory searches. The court denied the writ, explaining that the U.S. Supreme Court's 1976 decision in South Dakota v. Opperman recognized routine inventory searches of impounded vehicles as a valid seventh exception to the warrant requirement. This holding clarified that such searches, conducted according to standard police procedures to secure and inventory contents, do not constitute unreasonable searches and seizures.

criminal law

The case concerned whether an insurance policy issued by Great Central Insurance Company to William Tillery remained in effect on April 27, 1975, the date of a vehicle accident involving Tillery's wrecker. The court affirmed the declaratory judgment that the policy had been cancelled effective March 3, 1975, and was not reinstated before the accident, so the insurer had no duty to defend the insured parties. The reasoning was that the insurer proved by clear and convincing evidence that cancellation notices were properly mailed, creating a presumption of receipt that was not overcome, and that issues of waiver or estoppel were not properly raised because they were excluded from the pretrial order.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability