James H. Faulkner

The case involved Montgomery lawyer Allen Howell petitioning the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus or to declare unconstitutional certain provisions of the Alabama Code of Professional Responsibility that barred lawyers from advertising certifications as specialists by private organizations like the National Board of Trial Advocacy, except in fields such as patent or admiralty law. Howell argued these restrictions violated First Amendment commercial speech protections under Bates v. State Bar of Arizona and In re R.M.J. The court granted the writ conditionally, directing the State Bar to create a rule and approval process for certifying organizations within six months while allowing review of advertisements. It reasoned that blanket prohibitions on non-misleading representations of specialty certifications were invalid under Supreme Court precedent, as such certifications could convey accurate information about expertise beyond general bar admission, and any restrictions must be narrowly tailored to prevent deception rather than impose overly broad bans.

free speechbusiness & regulatory

This case concerned whether East-West Beltline, Inc. was entitled to a refund of mortgage recording privilege taxes paid on two additional security mortgages it executed to guarantee loans made by AmSouth Bank to its subsidiary, Bel Air Corporation. The probate judge had required the payments because the additional mortgages were executed by a different party than the original mortgages, but East-West paid under protest and sued for a refund, arguing the transactions qualified for the exemption in Ala. Code § 40-22-2(4). The court held that East-West was entitled to the $24,184.21 refund. It reasoned that the statute is unambiguous and exempts any instrument providing additional security for indebtedness already subject to tax as long as the amount and maturity of the debt remain unchanged, without any requirement that the mortgagor be identical to the original party. The court rejected arguments for considering legislative intent or administrative interpretations, as the plain language controlled.

taxesproperty

Keenan Cofield, an inmate with five theft convictions, sued the Advertiser Company and its employees for libel after a newspaper article described one of his lawsuits against state officials as frivolous. The trial court dismissed the complaint on the ground that Cofield was libel-proof as a matter of law, because his criminal record made any reputational harm from the article negligible and because requiring defendants to defend the suit would violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, adopting the trial court's reasoning and citing supporting precedents such as Cardillo v. Doubleday Co.

free speechtorts & liabilitycriminal law

The case involved a contract between the Tuscaloosa City Board of Education and American/Owens, Inc. for the removal of asbestos from school buildings, under which disputes about contract interpretation or breaches were to be resolved by the director of the State Building Commission, whose decision would be final. After the contractor claimed extra work was needed due to higher-than-expected asbestos quantities and the director ordered additional payment, the Board sued for a declaratory judgment arguing the director lacked jurisdiction. The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings for the contractor, finding the dispute fell within the arbitration clause and the director's decision binding. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the contract contained unclear provisions on work scope and extras that the director properly interpreted, and exhibits attached to the pleadings resolved any factual disputes.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Tommy Floyd's conviction for capital murder during a robbery under Alabama law, for which he received a death sentence. After the Court of Criminal Appeals remanded for a new sentencing hearing and then affirmed the conviction and sentence, the Alabama Supreme Court granted certiorari review. Floyd raised two issues: whether the State should elect among multiple indictment counts and whether the death penalty was appropriate given his post-conviction cooperation with prosecutors. The court agreed with the lower court's analysis of those claims, reviewed the record for plain error, and found that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating value of Floyd's cooperation, which occurred only after his own conviction. It therefore affirmed the judgment upholding the conviction and death sentence.

criminal law

This case involved a dispute over a financed 1977 Cadillac Seville purchased by Fannie Cole, who experienced mechanical problems, attempted to revoke acceptance of the vehicle from the dealer, and stopped payments after the dealer refused to take it back. The financing bank obtained single-interest insurance on the car after Cole's application was rejected and then filed a detinue action to repossess it, claiming Cole had defaulted by failing to maintain insurance coverage; Cole counterclaimed for conversion. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to the bank on the conversion counterclaim. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether Cole provided sufficient notice to revoke acceptance under Alabama Code § 7-2-608(2) and whether she was in default on the insurance requirement given the bank's policy. The court found at least a scintilla of evidence supporting Cole's position, precluding summary judgment.

propertyproceduretorts & liability