Sue Bell Cobb

This case arose from a dispute between the Water Works Board of the City of Auburn (AWWB) and the Loachapoka Water Authority (LWA) over which entity had the right to provide water and fire-protection services to overlapping areas, including a subdivision called The Greens at Auburn; the developers of that subdivision intervened in the suit. The trial court granted AWWB a partial summary judgment on several claims, dismissed LWA's counterclaim, and certified the order as final under Rule 54(b) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, prompting appeals by both LWA and the developers. The Alabama Supreme Court held that the certification was improper because the adjudicated claims were intertwined with still-pending claims, making piecemeal appellate review inappropriate. The Court therefore set aside the Rule 54(b) certification and remanded the case to the trial court without reaching the merits of the underlying water-service dispute.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In State v. Montgomery, Maurice Montgomery was indicted for third-degree burglary after police used dog tracking to locate him hours after a break-in at a store, read him Miranda rights, and obtained a confession at the jail; the trial court granted his motion to suppress the confession on the ground that the dog-tracking evidence alone did not supply probable cause for arrest. The State appealed, arguing that such evidence could establish probable cause. The appellate court reversed, holding that the tracking results, combined with the suspects having fled the scene on foot without returning to a nearby abandoned getaway car, were sufficient to warrant a prudent person in believing Montgomery had committed the burglary. The court analogized trained tracking dogs to drug-detection dogs whose alerts provide probable cause and noted that issues of evidentiary predicate and weight are for trial. It remanded for further proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

Leland Wilson sued the Saraland City Council and its members, alleging that they violated the Alabama Open Meetings Act during a November 2009 special meeting where the council discussed a proposed drainage plan for Wilson's property in executive session and excluded him from the public portion. The Mobile Circuit Court dismissed the case after two preliminary hearings under the Act, finding that Wilson had not met his initial burden to establish a violation. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that Wilson's sole argument at the hearings—that he was improperly excluded from the open meeting—did not demonstrate a violation of the Act's provisions on public access, executive sessions, or record-keeping, and that other potential claims were not properly raised below.

procedure

This case concerned competing claims to administer the estate of Jackie Ingram, who was killed in a car accident in St. Clair County but had lived for decades in Jefferson County with all his property and assets there. Rose Ingram obtained letters of administration ad litem from the Jefferson County probate court, while Edwin Van Dali later obtained general letters of administration from the St. Clair County probate court to handle potential claims arising from the accident. The St. Clair Circuit Court ruled that Van Dali's letters were valid, Rose Ingram's were invalid, and it had jurisdiction over the matter. The Alabama Supreme Court held that probate jurisdiction to issue letters of administration is determined by the decedent's county of residence at death, so the St. Clair probate court lacked authority to appoint Van Dali. Because that court had no jurisdiction, the circuit court acquired none upon removal, rendering its orders void; the court therefore vacated the April 2010 order and dismissed the action and appeal without prejudice.

procedurefamily law

The case involved Luvertte Williams's conviction for first-degree rape of W.M., an 11-year-old girl. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction on evidentiary grounds, but the Alabama Supreme Court reversed that decision and remanded the case. The central issue was the admissibility at trial of evidence that Williams had fathered a child with W.M.'s older sister J.W. when J.W. was 12, along with medical evidence that Williams, J.W., and W.M. all tested positive for chlamydia. The court held that this evidence was relevant under precedents such as Lee v. State to prove the mechanism of disease transmission through sexual contact and to identify Williams as the perpetrator, and that its probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned Jefferson County's authority to collect taxes under Act No. 2009-811, a local law reenacting and expanding prior occupational tax authority after earlier statutes were struck down. Plaintiffs, a class of professionals and businesses, challenged the Act's constitutionality, and the trial court granted summary judgment in their favor, enjoining further collections. The court held that the Act violated Alabama Constitution Article IV, Section 106 because the published notice failed to accurately describe key provisions, including its retroactive effect and its application of a new occupational tax to previously exempt licensed professionals. The trial court rejected arguments that the notice requirements did not apply or that a general description sufficed, and it made the ruling prospective only. The County appealed the decision to the Alabama Supreme Court.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

B.H. sued Dr. Delane O'Rear for negligence, wantonness, medical malpractice, assault, and the tort of outrage after a sexual relationship developed between them while B.H. was O'Rear's patient and O'Rear prescribed addictive opiate-based medications in exchange for sex. The jury returned a verdict for B.H. awarding $1 million in compensatory damages and $2 million in punitive damages, which the trial court entered as a judgment. O'Rear moved for judgment as a matter of law, to alter the judgment, or for a new trial, but the trial court denied the motions after reviewing the evidence. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed, holding that substantial evidence supported the verdict because O'Rear himself testified that the Hippocratic Oath and AMA rules set the applicable standard of care and that his conduct violated it, and because the record showed he continued prescribing drugs despite warning signs of addiction. The court also found sufficient evidence for the assault and tort-of-outrage claims given the facts presented.

healthcaretorts & liability

This case involved a dispute over public access to a boardwalk that has crossed private bayfront properties in Point Clear, Alabama, for over 100 years. Albert Key sued Eleanore Allison, a property owner who blocked a section of the boardwalk after Hurricane Ivan, and Baldwin County, seeking a declaration that the path was a dedicated public walkway and an injunction allowing maintenance and access. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed the trial court's judgment as a matter of law for the defendants. The court reasoned that the public's continuous use for more than a century created a prescriptive easement, as there was no evidence of permissive use during the initial 20-year period, triggering a presumption of adverse use under a claim of right and resulting dedication to public use.

property

In Ex Parte Bentley, Bentley Systems Inc. and the Bentley brothers petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to overturn the Madison Circuit Court's denial of their motion to dismiss or stay a lawsuit brought by Cobalt BSI Holding and Intergraph. The underlying case challenged an incentive-compensation plan, alleged that the Bentley brothers treated BSI as their alter ego, and sought their removal from management positions, with parallel proceedings also filed in Delaware. The defendants argued for dismissal under Alabama's forum non conveniens statute (§ 6-5-430) and claimed the Alabama court lacked personal jurisdiction over the individual brothers. The court denied the petition, holding that the Bentley brothers had sufficient minimum contacts with Alabama—including extensive communications, travel, prior litigation involvement, and control over a large Madison County office—to support personal jurisdiction.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case concerned a dispute between attorney Henry Penick and the Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge over two promissory notes totaling $200,000 secured by a mortgage on Penick's Birmingham law-office property. After Penick defaulted, the Lodge sent notices of acceleration and pursued foreclosure, later filing suit for specific performance of an alleged agreement to execute a deed in lieu of foreclosure plus ejectment; Penick raised defenses including challenges to the validity of the acceleration and related procedural issues. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court's summary judgment for the Lodge, holding that certain mortgage provisions regarding notice, cure rights, and remedies required further factual development while other claims were properly resolved on the existing record, and remanded the case.

propertyprocedure

The case involved a dispute over real property owned by Maxine Rudolph that was sold at a tax sale to entities controlled by Antonio Espinoza for delinquent taxes of about $234. After Rudolph redeemed the property by paying the taxes plus interest, Espinoza's company Jabez Land Co. filed a lien statement claiming nearly $10,000 for alleged repairs, rented the house to tenants, and refused to vacate despite demands. Jabez sued Rudolph, who counterclaimed, and the trial court awarded Rudolph $50,000 in compensatory damages and $25,000 in punitive damages. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Jabez lacked valid ownership or lien rights after the redemption and had wrongfully possessed and profited from the property.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

In Raines v. Synovus Trust Co., N.A., the Raines children sued Synovus Trust and its agents for breach of fiduciary duty, alleging that the defendants failed to diversify or manage assets in two revocable management trusts created by their parents in 2000, despite charging over $130,000 in fees. The defendants petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to dismiss the children's claims. The court granted the petition and issued the writ, holding that the children lacked standing. Under Ala. Code § 19-3B-603(a) of the Alabama Uniform Trust Code, which applies to these trusts, while a trust is revocable the trustee's duties are owed exclusively to the settlor, so the children's rights as beneficiaries were subject to the parents' control and did not constitute legally protected interests that could support a lawsuit.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

This case arose from disputes over decisions by the State Health Planning and Development Agency regarding applications for ambulatory surgical centers in Gulf Shores and Orange Beach, Alabama, with challenges brought by local cities, a competing health system, and other parties. The Alabama Supreme Court addressed petitions for writs of certiorari seeking review of the Court of Civil Appeals' ruling in the matter. The court quashed the writs without further explanation of the underlying issues. It added that this action should not be understood as endorsing all language, reasons, or statements of law in the lower court's opinion.

healthcarebusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved LPP Mortgage, Ltd., as assignee of the SBA, seeking to enforce personal guaranties executed by the Boutwell defendants on a defaulted $750,000 SBA-backed loan to Boutwell Lumber Company after the company’s 1995 bankruptcy left over $680,000 unpaid. The trial court dismissed the 2005 action, concluding that LPP lacked privity because the assignment chain from the SBA was incomplete and that Alabama’s six-year statute of limitations had run following the SBA’s 1999 demand letters. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that LPP stands in the shoes of the SBA so that the federal six-year limitations period in 28 U.S.C. § 2415(a) governs; under that statute the cause of action accrued upon written demand and was renewed by the defendants’ partial payments in 2001–2002, rendering the suit timely.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a payment dispute under a construction subcontract for a project in Mobile, Alabama, where the subcontractor Benise-Dowling, a Georgia corporation not authorized to transact business in Alabama, sued the general contractor Archer Western in Alabama circuit court. The trial court granted summary judgment dismissing the claims based on Alabama statutes barring unauthorized foreign corporations from suing, then amended the judgment to dismiss without prejudice except for refiling in Alabama. The Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the amended judgment, holding that the trial court erred in specifying that the dismissal was without prejudice to actions in other jurisdictions. The core reasoning was that Alabama courts determine only the effect of their judgments within the state, while the preclusive effect elsewhere is governed by full faith and credit principles and comity, and the statutes at issue did not deprive the court of subject-matter jurisdiction.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a negligence claim by Bradford Building Company against QORE, Inc., a firm hired to perform construction materials testing and compaction observation for a building project on a former gas station site. The concrete slab failed because fill material over an excavated fuel tank pit had not been properly compacted, causing Bradford to bear repair costs after assuming responsibility from the property owner. The trial court denied QORE's motion for judgment as a matter of law, allowing the case to proceed to the jury, and the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed that ruling. The court held that trial evidence created a question of fact as to the scope of QORE's duties under its contract and related specifications, whether those duties were breached, and whether any breach proximately caused the loss.

torts & liabilitypropertybusiness & regulatory

In this case, Sarah Mosley sued Brookwood Health Services for medical malpractice under the Alabama Medical Liability Act after being attacked by another psychiatric patient while both were in the hospital's intermediate-care unit. Mosley claimed Brookwood negligently failed to seclude the combative patient in a locked room, monitor patients adequately, and respond promptly to the attack. The trial court granted summary judgment to Brookwood, and the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Mosley failed to produce substantial evidence showing any breach of the standard of care or that such a breach proximately caused her injuries. The court found the evidence showed staff followed the applicable procedures for observing and managing patients, and there was no proof linking any alleged delay in response to additional harm.

healthcaretorts & liabilityprocedure

The case concerned claims by Tranquilino Ryan Ventura against attorney Billie B. Line and Hartford Fire Insurance Company arising from the loss of funds in a conservatorship established for Ventura as a minor, after Line assisted in setting up the conservatorship and signed a joint-control agreement with Hartford to oversee expenditures. Ventura asserted negligence, wantonness, and breach of fiduciary duty against Line, along with a legal-malpractice claim, while Hartford pursued cross-claims for breach of fiduciary duty and indemnity; the brokerage defendants were dismissed for arbitration. The trial court rejected Line's argument that the Alabama Legal Services Liability Act provided the exclusive basis for relief, allowed the non-ALSLA claims to proceed to trial, and entered judgment on the jury's verdict of $200,000 compensatory and $550,000 punitive damages against Line after denying post-trial motions including remittitur. On appeal, Line contended that the ALSLA's limitations period and provisions should have applied exclusively, that Hartford's claims should not have gone to the jury, and that punitive damages should be reduced. The court's reasoning centered on whether Line's conduct created duties separate from legal services and whether the trial court properly instructed the jury and handled the damages awards under applicable standards.

torts & liabilityprocedurefamily law

In this medical-malpractice case, Julie Lyons and her husband sued Vaughan Regional Medical Center after Julie developed reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD) in her hand, alleging that an infiltrated Hep-lock IV device used during her 2003 hospitalization caused the condition by delivering medication into surrounding tissue rather than a vein. The trial court granted summary judgment to the hospital, and the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that the plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Singh, identified the IV as the most likely cause of RSD but also listed multiple possible minor traumas—including both the device's insertion and any infiltration—as potential triggers, which was insufficient to prove that the alleged negligence was the proximate and probable cause of the injury under the Alabama Medical Liability Act. Because Julie's claim failed, her husband's derivative loss-of-consortium claim also failed.

torts & liabilityhealthcareprocedure

William H. Phillips sued Ken Johnson, .Com +, L.L.C., Lew Dickey, and various Cumulus entities for civil conspiracy and tortious interference with a business relationship, stemming from a long-running ownership dispute over Baldwin Broadcasting Company and its radio stations that involved prior litigation, a bankruptcy proceeding, a settlement agreement, and asset purchase agreements for the stations. The Mobile Circuit Court entered summary judgments for the defendants, and Phillips appealed. The Alabama Supreme Court concluded that the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the bankruptcy court had retained exclusive jurisdiction over the asset sales, the settlement, and related disputes, including any interference claims arising from them. Accordingly, the Supreme Court vacated the summary judgments, dismissed the appeal, and dismissed the underlying action.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory