Robert B. Harwood

The case involved General Telephone Company of Alabama's application to the Alabama Public Service Commission for an annual intrastate rate increase of about $2.5 million, which was filed shortly before the company merged into its affiliate GTSE; after hearings and approval of the merger, the Commission granted GTSE a partial increase of roughly $1.44 million based on a test year ending May 1971 and a reasonable rate of return of 8.58%. Intervenors including the Governor and municipalities challenged the order, arguing the merger changed the parties and seeking dismissal or refunds of the collected rates. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's upholding of the Commission order, reasoning that rates lawfully collected under a Commission approval cannot be retroactively reduced or refunded absent specific statutory authority, the merger proceedings did not invalidate the rate case, and no trust fund existed to support an award of attorney fees.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a dispute between owners of residential lots in the Paradise Acres subdivision and the successors to the original developer over the scope of easements around Paradise Lake and the lot owners' rights to control the lake's use and future development of surrounding land. The lot owners sought a declaratory judgment claiming ownership interests in the lake, limits on its users based on single-family residential development, and restrictions preventing sewer lines in the easements or lake bed, along with estoppel based on alleged representations about future development. The court affirmed the trial decree, holding that the 20-foot easement along the water's edge was limited to pedestrian travel and did not allow sewer installation on the lots, while the separate "Easement for Access to Lake" strip permitted careful sewer placement in the strip or lake bed without interfering with access or use. The court further ruled that promises regarding future single-family development could not support estoppel because they concerned future actions rather than past or present facts, and the servient estate owners retained rights to use the land consistent with the easements' purposes.

property

In Swartz v. United States Steel Corporation, the plaintiff sued for damages for loss of her husband's consortium resulting from injuries allegedly caused by the defendant's negligence. The trial court dismissed the suit under prior Alabama precedent holding that a wife had no common-law cause of action for such loss. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed and overruled that precedent, holding that a wife may recover for loss of consortium. The court reasoned that the historical common-law denial rested on an outdated view of married women's legal status that was inconsistent with modern institutions and that numerous other jurisdictions had recognized the claim.

torts & liabilityfamily law

The case involved James and Nell Johnson seeking specific performance of an agreement to purchase 2.43 acres of land from the City of Sylacauga for $25,000 under a 90-day option. The city council had authorized the mayor to sign such an option, but a new mayor later declined to proceed, and the Johnsons never tendered the purchase price within the period. The court held the agreement null and void, ruling that state law (Act No. 843) authorizes cities to dispose of unneeded real property only by ordinance directing the mayor to convey title, not by granting options, and that the mayor's signature and added conditions like rezoning exceeded any authority. The trial court's denial of specific performance was affirmed.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case involved the first-degree murder conviction of Ronald Keith Connell for killing a man who had picked him and his accomplices up while hitchhiking; the victim's wife was the sole eyewitness and survived the attack. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction solely on the ground that the trial court improperly limited defense cross-examination of the wife using an unsigned, unseen transcript of her hospital interview with police. The Alabama Supreme Court granted certiorari and held that the trial court did not err, reinstating the conviction because the transcript could not be used to refresh the witness's recollection under the circumstances and the evidentiary ruling did not violate the right to thorough cross-examination. The court reasoned that established rules for refreshing recollection apply equally on cross-examination and that the trial judge's discretion does not override those substantive limits.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a detinue action in which plaintiff Wolff sought recovery of a 1964 automobile from defendant Davis, along with its alternate value and damages for detention, after Davis retained the vehicle following unsuccessful transmission repairs. The trial court entered judgment for Wolff awarding the car or $600 in alternate value plus $200 in damages. On appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court reversed, holding that the plaintiff failed to present any evidence of the car's value or the amount of detention damages, which is required under Alabama Code Title 7, Section 921, and established precedents like Cable Piano Co. v. Estes. The Court noted that the incomplete transcript and lack of proof meant the evidence was insufficient to support the judgment, leading to reversal and remand.

propertyprocedure