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

The case involved a lawsuit filed by Robert Lee Jackson in Macon County against his employer, a foreign corporation, and co-employees for workmen's compensation benefits, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, all arising from events in Montgomery County where the parties resided. The trial court transferred the negligence and emotional distress claims to Montgomery County after severing and resolving the workmen's compensation claim, finding improper joinder. The Alabama Supreme Court granted a writ of mandamus to vacate the transfer, reasoning that the emotional distress claim against the corporation stated a viable cause of action, making venue proper in Macon County where the corporation did business, and denied the request to recuse the trial judge due to lack of evidence of personal bias.

proceduretorts & liabilitylabor & employment

The case involved Holland Wilhite's conviction for second-degree assault after a confrontation with a police officer during which Wilhite struck the officer following an attempted arrest. Wilhite sought a new trial, arguing that the prosecutor's closing argument improperly referred to him as a 'drunk dope addict,' commented on his failure to present evidence about medication, and that the trial court erred by refusing a requested jury instruction on self-defense regarding an unlawful arrest. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the 'dope addict' remark was improper but eradicable by the trial court's curative instruction, that the medication comment was not a direct reference to Wilhite's failure to testify and was not preserved by objection, and that the requested self-defense charge was properly refused due to flawed wording, incompleteness, and coverage by other instructions.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a personal injury lawsuit by Katie Merle Doege against Edward A. Wallace, Sr., the owner of her employer Sigma Fisheries, for injuries sustained when her finger was caught in a fish roe saw she was operating. The trial court entered a judgment on a jury verdict awarding Doege $12,000, but the appellate court reversed. The court held that Doege's claim was not barred by the statute of limitations because the relation-back doctrine applied to her substitution of Wallace for a fictitious defendant. However, the court determined that Doege was contributorily negligent as a matter of law, as she knew the danger of cleaning the saw without turning off the power, appreciated the risk based on her 25 years of experience with similar equipment, and failed to exercise reasonable care, making her actions the proximate cause of her injury.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case is an election contest over a Hurtsboro City Council seat won by William Persons by a three-vote margin in 1984. Edna Hawkins challenged the result, arguing that election officials improperly excluded or failed to count ballots from challenged voters who were eligible but not given the correct municipal-election oath as required by Alabama statutes. The trial court ruled for Persons, but the court reversed, concluding that the statutes place the duty on election officials to administer the proper oath and that voters who did not refuse the oath should not be disenfranchised by officials' errors. The court held that the excluded ballots, which would have elected Hawkins if counted, must be included because the voters were qualified and the procedural mistakes were attributable to officials rather than the voters themselves.

electionsprocedure

The case before the Alabama Supreme Court involved a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of a decision from the Court of Criminal Appeals in a criminal matter. The court denied the petition for certiorari. In doing so, the court explicitly stated that its denial should not be interpreted as endorsing all language, reasons, or statements of law contained in the lower court's opinion. The denial was issued without further elaboration on the underlying facts or issues, consistent with the cited precedent regarding the effect of such denials.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Gulf House Association challenging the Town of Gulf Shores' grant of a variance allowing the construction of The Whaler condominium on four lots near their own condominium, seeking to enjoin the construction and questioning the constitutionality of certain zoning ordinance amendments. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of both preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, as well as the issuance of the variance. The reasoning was that Gulf House failed to demonstrate a protected legal right, such as an entitlement to a view of the Gulf, or any irreparable injury, and that the constitutional challenge to the ordinance was unnecessary because the approval of the building plans was independent of the ordinance amendment.

propertybusiness & regulatory

In Pierce v. Heyman, plaintiff Eugene Pierce sued Combined Insurance Company of America and several of its employees over a dispute regarding insurance benefits following an accidental shooting and subsequent hospitalizations. The trial court dismissed four non-resident employees as defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction. On appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the employees had insufficient contacts with Alabama under the state's long-arm statute because their actions in handling the claims occurred solely within the scope of their out-of-state employment and did not involve personal business or presence in Alabama. The court reasoned that asserting jurisdiction over them would offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice, following precedent that distinguishes corporate actions from those of individual officers or employees.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

Doris Johnson, a tenured faculty member at Alabama Agricultural and Mechanical University, sued the university, its president, and trustees seeking a declaratory judgment that her termination was invalid, alleging violations of due process in the hearing and decision-making process under the faculty handbook. The trial court denied relief, and the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that Johnson's claim regarding the right to legal representation at the hearing was not preserved for appeal. It further reasoned that the president was entitled to review her personnel file and consider evidence beyond the hearing record when deciding on termination, as the handbook authorized his final decision after the committee's finding of guilt, and that Johnson had effectively waived objections by participating in additional review proceedings after an initial probation decision. The termination was therefore upheld as consistent with the handbook procedures and due process requirements.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

This case was a boundary dispute in which the plaintiffs, long-time owners of a farm in Bibb County, Alabama, sued their neighbor for trespass and intentional infliction of emotional distress after he bulldozed a hedgerow and erected a fence on land south of a road that the plaintiffs claimed was part of the "houseplace lot" they had retained when selling the rest of the farm decades earlier. A jury awarded the plaintiffs $12,500, and the trial court denied the defendant's post-verdict motions. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that the ambiguous deed description, combined with testimony and evidence of the plaintiffs' long-term control up to the hedgerow, provided sufficient support for a finding that the plaintiffs owned the disputed strip and that the defendant's actions were wanton enough to justify punitive damages on the trespass claim.

propertytorts & liability

This case involved a lawsuit by Linda Miller and James Robert Peters against Clinton Ikner for negligence and wantonness arising from a motor vehicle collision on Interstate 10. The trial court, after a bench trial, ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on the wantonness claim, awarding Miller $50,000 and Peters $7,500, finding that Ikner intentionally caused the collision. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the judgment, holding that the trial court's findings were supported by credible evidence and entitled to a presumption of correctness under the ore tenus rule, despite conflicting accounts of the events. The court also addressed evidentiary issues, concluding that certain business records were properly admitted.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case concerned whether a defendant's guilty plea and conviction for an improper lane usage violation barred a subsequent prosecution for driving under the influence arising from the same traffic stop, on double jeopardy grounds. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the DUI conviction, ruling that the prior adjudication did not preclude the later prosecution. The court applied the Blockburger test to conclude that the offenses were not the same, as each required proof of an element the other did not: the lane violation needed no showing of intoxication, while DUI did not require proof of a lane violation.

criminal law

The case involved a contract dispute between developers, including Terry Cove North, Inc., and the Baldwin County Sewer Authority regarding rights to sewer hook-up units in a treatment facility built under a 1980 agreement. The developers had contributed funds for initial construction in exchange for specified units and preemptive rights to expansions up to 3600 total units listed in Exhibit B, but later claimed a pro-rata share of any excess capacity after the Authority began selling additional units to other parties. The Sewer Authority filed for declaratory judgment asserting exclusive ownership of excess capacity. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to the Authority, and the appellate court affirmed, ruling that the contract was unambiguous as a matter of law and did not grant the developers rights beyond the designated units.

business & regulatoryproperty

In Taylor v. Moorman Mfg. Co., plaintiff Roy Taylor sued his employer Moorman Manufacturing Company and district sales manager James Atanasoff for fraud and misrepresentation, claiming he was orally promised an exclusive sales territory without competition when hired as a feed products salesman but later found another salesman serving two customers in the area. The trial court granted directed verdicts for the defendants on punitive damages at the close of plaintiff's case and on compensatory damages after the defense rested, and the appellate court affirmed both rulings. On punitive damages, the court held there was no evidence that the representation was made with intent to willfully deceive or recklessly without regard to truth. On compensatory damages, the court concluded that Taylor could not prove reasonable reliance on the oral statement because he had read the written contract, which limited his authority to customers assigned and listed in his territory records, and he had identified the contract's termination clause as the most important factor to him.

torts & liabilitylabor & employment

This case involves a will contest appeal in which proponent Randy Lagrone sought to probate his grandfather A.W. Lagrone's 1964 will nine years after the testator's 1974 death, claiming that his father Wilbur's concealment of the will tolled the five-year filing deadline under Alabama law. Contestant Jacqueline Vandegrift, another grandchild, challenged the petition as untimely and alleged undue influence, though the latter claim lacked supporting evidence. The jury ruled for the proponent, and the court affirmed, holding that the statute of limitations was tolled by fraudulent concealment pursuant to precedent in Fuller v. Qualls and that the jury could reasonably find both that Wilbur knew of the will (discovered among his effects) and that Randy timely discovered it within one year of learning the facts. The decision rests on the principle that concealment by an heir prevents the proponent from filing and that questions of discovery timing are for the jury.

family lawpropertyprocedure