This case arose after the drowning death of a minor child, F.W.H., while in the care of his father, Grady Scott Humphryes, following the parents' divorce and while they shared joint custody; the mother, B.S.H., sued both the father and a neighbor under Alabama's wrongful-death statute for a minor, and after the neighbor settled for $100,000 that was interpleaded, the parents disputed allocation of the funds. The father later pleaded guilty to criminally negligent homicide, prompting the mother to seek all remaining settlement funds on the ground that he could not benefit from a death he caused, but the trial court awarded the father his half. On appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court dismissed the case, holding that it lacked jurisdiction because the trial court's order was not a final judgment. The court reasoned that the mother's original wrongful-death claim against the father remained pending and unresolved, as the trial court had expressly reserved other issues for further proceedings.
This case involved a wrongful-death lawsuit filed by Mary E. Milner, as administrator of her husband's estate, against a hospital for alleged negligence leading to his death in 2022. The original complaint named the wrong corporate defendant and used fictitious parties, and the plaintiff did not substitute the correct entity, Affinity Hospital, LLC d/b/a Grandview Medical Center, until after the two-year statute of limitations under Alabama's Wrongful Death Act had expired. The trial court denied Affinity's motion to dismiss, finding that the second amended complaint related back under Rules 9(h) and 15(c)(4) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure because the plaintiff had exercised due diligence. The Alabama Supreme Court granted Affinity's petition for a writ of mandamus, holding that the plaintiff failed to act with due diligence, as she had received notice of the correct defendant from the initially named party and publicly available records, including prior court opinions, well before the limitations period ran. As a result, the Court directed the trial court to dismiss the claim against Affinity as time-barred.
The case involved a dispute between Holly Wren Wallace Schumpert and her parents, Alton and Patsy Wallace, regarding a deed conveying an interest in their Orange Beach condominium. The parents had promised Holly the interest in exchange for her relocating from Tennessee to care for them after they contracted COVID-19, but later sought to annul the deed because it was executed in their individual capacities rather than as trustees of their revocable trust and under Alabama Code § 8-9-12, which allows annulment of conveyances where a material part of the consideration is an agreement to provide care and support. The trial court annulled the deed and dismissed Holly's counterclaims for fraud and breach of warranties. On appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the statute authorized the annulment and that it extinguished the counterclaims dependent on the voided conveyance.
This case involved proceedings between S.W. and the Cleburne County Department of Human Resources that originated in the Cleburne Juvenile Court and were reviewed by the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals. S.W. then petitioned the Supreme Court of Alabama for a writ of certiorari seeking further review of that decision. The Supreme Court denied the petition without issuing an opinion, leaving the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals in place. No reasoning or analysis was provided by the Court in its order.
The case involved S.W. seeking a writ of certiorari from the Alabama Supreme Court to review a decision by the Court of Civil Appeals in a proceeding against the Cleburne County Department of Human Resources that originated in the Cleburne Juvenile Court. The Supreme Court denied the petition for the writ. The denial was issued without an opinion, with the court simply certifying that the writ was denied and noting the concurrence of the Chief Justice and three associate justices.
This case concerned a petition filed by S.W. seeking a writ of certiorari from the Alabama Supreme Court to review a decision of the Court of Civil Appeals. The underlying dispute originated in the Cleburne Juvenile Court between S.W. and the Cleburne County Department of Human Resources. The Supreme Court denied the petition for the writ of certiorari and issued no opinion, leaving the Court of Civil Appeals' ruling in place.
The case concerned a dispute between S.W. and the Cleburne County Department of Human Resources arising from proceedings in the Cleburne Juvenile Court. After an adverse ruling from the Court of Civil Appeals, S.W. petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court denied the petition on January 9, 2026, without issuing an opinion, leaving the intermediate appellate decision in place. This outcome means no further review occurred at the state's highest court.
The case concerns a dispute between S.W. and the Cleburne County Department of Human Resources arising from juvenile court proceedings (JU-23-21.02). After the Court of Civil Appeals issued a decision in the matter, S.W. petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review that ruling. The Supreme Court denied the petition without an opinion, with Chief Justice Stewart and Justices Wise, Sellers, Parker, and Cook concurring, leaving the Court of Civil Appeals' judgment in place.
The case concerned a dispute between S.W. and the Cleburne County Department of Human Resources arising from juvenile court proceedings. After the Court of Civil Appeals issued a decision adverse to S.W., S.W. petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review that ruling. The Supreme Court denied the petition without an opinion, leaving the Court of Civil Appeals' judgment in place. No reasoning for the denial was provided in the court's order.
This case concerns Jon David Dufrene's petition to the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari seeking review of a decision by the Court of Criminal Appeals in his criminal prosecution by the State of Alabama, which originated in the Mobile Circuit Court. The Supreme Court denied the petition on January 9, 2026, without issuing an opinion on the merits. All participating justices concurred in the denial, indicating that the case did not meet the standards for further appellate review by the state's highest court.
This case involves Duvon Lavel Estridge's petition to the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari seeking review of a decision by the Court of Criminal Appeals in his criminal case against the State of Alabama, stemming from proceedings in the Covington Circuit Court. The Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari without issuing an opinion. The denial means the Court declined to hear the case, leaving the lower court's ruling in place, with all participating justices concurring in the decision.
In this case, veterans Miguel A. Laborde and Himelda Johanna Cruz-Candelo defaulted on a VA-guaranteed mortgage loan serviced by Citizens Bank, N.A., after which the bank foreclosed on their home despite their attempts to cure the default and allegedly retained a surplus from the sale. The borrowers sued the bank for breach of contract, wrongful foreclosure, unjust enrichment, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, but the trial court dismissed all claims. On appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the good faith claim but reversed the others, holding that the complaint sufficiently alleged facts supporting the claims under Alabama's notice-pleading standard, particularly regarding the bank's failure to comply with VA preforeclosure servicing requirements and potential retention of excess funds.
The case involved Leonard Hixon suing Premier Medical Group, Inc. under the Alabama Medical Liability Act for complications, including facial paralysis, following a 2022 surgery performed by Dr. Burton, alleging vicarious liability under respondeat superior. Hixon initially failed to properly name and serve Dr. Burton as a party; after amending the complaint and serving him, the trial court dismissed the claims against Dr. Burton with prejudice as time-barred by the AMLA's two-year statute of limitations. Premier then moved for summary judgment, contending that the with-prejudice dismissal of the agent precluded vicarious liability against the principal. The trial court granted summary judgment to Premier, and the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that a principal cannot be held vicariously liable when claims against the agent have been dismissed with prejudice, even on statute-of-limitations grounds.
This case involved a medical malpractice action under the Alabama Medical Liability Act brought by Rhiannon Carroll on behalf of her minor child for injuries during birth against Coosa Valley Medical Center, Marble City Family Care and Obstetrics, P.C., and Dr. Clifton Garris. After fact discovery closed, Carroll's expert disclosures raised new acts or omissions not included in her prior complaints, prompting her to file second amended complaints; the defendants moved to dismiss those new allegations as untimely under § 6-5-551, but the trial court denied the motions. The defendants petitioned for writs of mandamus. The Alabama Supreme Court granted the petitions, holding that the amendments were not timely because Carroll had delayed over a year after learning of the new claims and had already conducted extensive discovery based on the earlier pleadings. The core reasoning was that § 6-5-551 requires timely amendment upon learning of new acts or omissions, and the delay here violated that rule, warranting mandamus relief to enforce the statute's limits.
In this medical malpractice case under the Alabama Medical Liability Act, Rhiannon Carroll sued Coosa Valley Medical Center, Marble City Family Care and Obstetrics, P.C., and Dr. Clifton Garris on behalf of her minor child J.C. for alleged breaches of the standard of care during prenatal care and the October 2020 birth that caused shoulder injuries. After two years of discovery based on the first amended complaints, Carroll's expert disclosures introduced new unalleged acts or omissions, prompting her to file second amended complaints; the defendants moved to dismiss those additions as untimely under § 6-5-551, but the trial court denied the motions. The Alabama Supreme Court granted the defendants' petitions for writs of mandamus, directing the trial court to vacate its orders and dismiss the new allegations because they were not asserted timely upon discovery.
The case involves Brandon Edwards filing a petition for a writ of certiorari asking the Alabama Supreme Court to review a decision by the Court of Criminal Appeals in his criminal case against the State of Alabama originating from the Jefferson Circuit Court. The Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari. No opinion was issued explaining the decision. All participating justices concurred in the denial.
The case involved Donisha Howard's lawsuit against the Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama, which operates UAB Hospital, challenging a $9,231 hospital lien placed on settlement funds from a car accident after Howard received treatment there. Howard initially filed claims including an interpleader action to deposit the disputed funds with the court for adjudication but later amended her complaint to drop the interpleader and proceed solely on tort, contract, and state constitutional claims. The Board moved to dismiss based on state immunity under Article I, § 14 of the Alabama Constitution, but the trial court denied the motion. The Alabama Supreme Court granted the Board's petition for a writ of mandamus, holding that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the amended complaint sought relief directly against a state entity without the interpleader mechanism that could have allowed judicial review.
The case involved Danmacquis Jones filing a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Alabama Supreme Court seeking review of a decision by the Court of Criminal Appeals in his criminal matter against the State of Alabama, which originated in the Madison Circuit Court under case number CC-21-1132.60. The Supreme Court considered the petition and entered a judgment denying the writ. No opinion was issued explaining the decision, and the order noted that Chief Justice Stewart and Justices Wise, Sellers, Parker, and Cook all concurred in the denial. The judgment was certified pursuant to Alabama appellate rules, with costs taxed accordingly.
The case involved Southampton 100, LLC challenging multiple years of ad valorem tax valuations assessed on a low-income-housing property it purchased in 2019, after the Jefferson County Board of Equalization adjusted some values but Southampton remained dissatisfied and appealed to circuit court, where the Alabama Department of Revenue appeared as appellee. Discovery disputes arose, culminating in the circuit court dismissing Southampton's consolidated appeals with prejudice as a sanction for refusing to produce a second corporate representative for an in-person deposition in Alabama without first seeking a protective order. The Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the dismissal and remanded, concluding that the record did not establish willful noncompliance with discovery obligations by Southampton. The opinion also addressed the importance of providing hearings before granting contested dispositive sanctions motions under rules such as Rule 37.
This case concerns Jaimee Elizabeth Hunter's petition to the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari seeking review of a decision by the Court of Criminal Appeals in her criminal case against the State of Alabama, which originated in the Chilton Circuit Court. The Supreme Court considered the petition and entered a judgment denying the writ. The denial was issued without an accompanying opinion, with all participating justices concurring in the result.