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

The case involved Billy Don Clark, who was indicted for first-degree murder in Alabama, initially pled guilty to second-degree murder as part of a plea bargain, and was sentenced to life imprisonment. After the conviction was reversed on appeal for failing to comply with Boykin v. Alabama requirements on the guilty plea, Clark was retried on the original indictment and convicted of first-degree murder. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the second conviction, holding that the prior guilty plea to second-degree murder acted as an acquittal of the first-degree charge and barred retrial under double jeopardy principles. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed that decision, ruling that a guilty plea to a lesser offense does not constitute an acquittal after a full evidentiary trial on the greater offense, so double jeopardy did not apply in this continuing proceeding on the original indictment, and remanded for further review of other issues.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a boundary line dispute between adjacent landowners in Cherokee County, Alabama. The plaintiff filed a complaint seeking a court decree to locate and establish the true boundary line, which he alleged was unknown and in dispute. The trial court ordered a survey by a licensed surveyor after the parties agreed one was needed, held a hearing on the report, and entered a decree fixing the boundary according to the survey while splitting costs between the parties. On appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the decree, finding ample evidence to support the trial court's conclusions, particularly given that the ore tenus testimony was heard directly by the trial judge.

property

In Clark v. Smith, a minor motorcycle rider and his father sued a truck driver and the driver's employer for negligence after a collision on Turner Road in Alabama, seeking damages for injuries, medical expenses, and lost services; the defendants raised contributory negligence as a defense. A jury returned verdicts for the defendants in the consolidated cases, and the plaintiffs appealed, challenging certain jury instructions on contributory negligence and the concept of a 'mere accident.' The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the judgments, holding that the challenged charges were proper because they correctly instructed that a verdict could not rest on conjecture and that liability required a finding of proximate causation from negligence rather than an unavoidable accident, without improperly increasing the plaintiffs' burden of proof.

torts & liability

This case arose from a long-running dispute over insurance coverage for claims of trespass and conspiracy stemming from the 1959 demolition of a party wall between adjacent buildings in Mobile, Alabama, where the Metzgers' construction plans led to the city condemning the wall and forcing tenants (the Friedmans) to vacate. The Metzgers held a manufacturers and contractors liability policy from Royal Indemnity Co. covering demolition and construction work at the site, and they notified the insurer of the Friedmans' suit within days of being served. The central issues were whether notice was given as soon as practicable and whether the policy extended to the incidental operations and resulting damage. The court affirmed the chancellor's decree in favor of coverage, finding that notice was timely under the circumstances and that the policy's terms encompassed the work and unexpected events during the covered operations.

torts & liabilitypropertybusiness & regulatory

The case concerned a quo warranto action brought by the Alabama State Bar against Land Title Company of Alabama, alleging that the company had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by using non-lawyer employees to examine county land records and issue commitments for title insurance containing statements about the state of title to five parcels of real property, for which it charged fees beyond the insurance premiums. The trial court entered judgment on the pleadings for the plaintiffs, but the Alabama Supreme Court reversed. The court held that the commitments were part of the company's authorized title insurance business under Section 42, Title 46, Code of Alabama, and did not constitute separate legal opinions rendered to third parties.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case involved John E. Garner petitioning the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review and revise the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals in Garner v. State, 53 Ala.App. 209, 298 So.2d 630. The Supreme Court denied the writ. Justices Heflin, Merrill, Maddox, and Faulkner concurred in the denial.

criminal lawprocedure

In Barnes v. Kent, Kent sought injunctive relief against the Barneses after they obstructed a public road south of his property and blocked an access easement across a narrow strip of land they owned, which had long provided Kent entry to his 1,700-acre parcel from the public road connecting U.S. Highway 231 and the Old Sylacauga Highway. The trial court granted a temporary restraining order, later made permanent, enjoining the Barneses from interfering with Kent's use of both the public road and the easement. On appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the pleadings and evidence regarding the easement were properly consolidated and treated as an amendment under equity rules, that the parties had full opportunity to litigate the issues, and that testimony sufficiently linked the Barneses to the obstructions. The court rejected arguments that the original bill's allegations about the public road obstruction lacked supporting proof or that procedural formalities barred relief.

propertyprocedure

This case involves a challenge to a grand jury indictment in Alabama, where the petitioner argued that the District Attorney's presence and operation of a recording device during grand jury proceedings invalidated the indictment. The Alabama Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari, affirming the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The court reasoned that the District Attorney had statutory authority to be present and departed before deliberations began, distinguishing it from cases where unauthorized persons were involved. It further held that the presence of such a person constitutes at most an irregularity that does not vitiate the indictment absent a showing of prejudice to the accused, consistent with the prevailing view in other states and prior Alabama precedent.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the administrator of Sylvia Horn's estate against truck driver Olen Smith and his employer Dunham Lumber Company after Horn's car crossed the center line of a rainy highway and collided with the defendants' northbound lumber truck, resulting in her death. The complaint alleged negligence in failing to properly secure the lumber load and a statutory violation of Alabama's load-fastening requirements, with the plaintiff arguing that lumber falling from the truck caused Horn to swerve. The defendants raised contributory negligence and presented evidence that the load was properly secured with chains and packets, that no lumber fell before the impact, and that the collision itself caused some lumber to dislodge. The jury returned a verdict for the defendants, which the trial court entered as judgment. On appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence supported findings of proper loading and lack of proximate cause, and that challenges to verdict sufficiency required a motion for new trial which was not filed.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved David Shiflett's petition to the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari seeking review of a decision by the Court of Criminal Appeals in Shiflett v. State, 52 Ala. App. 476, 294 So. 2d 444. The Supreme Court denied the petition without further elaboration on the merits. The denial was issued unanimously, with Chief Justice Heflin and Justices Merrill, Maddox, and Faulkner concurring.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned Claude David Ballew's conviction for selling an adult magazine titled 'Penelope, Issue No. 1' at his Mobile bookstore, which was deemed obscene or hard-core pornography under Alabama Act No. 698. Ballew had received prior written notice from an Assistant Attorney General that the material violated the law, and he was prosecuted after a subsequent sale to an undercover officer. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and the lower court's judgment, ruling that the statute's notice requirement is constitutional and does not mandate a pre-prosecution adversary hearing to determine obscenity. The core reasoning was that the notice provision informs the seller of the state's determination, supports a knowing violation, and aligns with Miller v. California standards allowing state regulation of obscenity without prior judicial determination for every item.

criminal lawfree speech

This case concerned whether funds held by the Citronelle-Mobile Gathering System for unknown or unlocatable owners of oil-producing land interests were subject to Alabama's Uniform Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act, after the Revenue Commissioner demanded their turnover. The lower court ruled the funds exempt and enjoined enforcement, but on appeal the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed proper venue in Mobile County under the Act's special provision for aggrieved parties while reversing on the merits. The court held that the Act's custodial scheme for abandoned property applies to such funds after seven years without owner contact, regardless of whether title issues stemmed from unadministered estates, because the statute is not limited to death-related escheats and prevents holders from retaining property that true owners might later claim. It remanded for further proceedings consistent with this interpretation.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a dispute between the Morgan County Commission and the judges of Alabama's Eighth Judicial Circuit over authority to set salaries for the judges' stenographic and clerical staff under a 1959 statute. The statute permitted each judge to employ necessary assistance and fix salaries subject to county governing body approval, but the Commission rejected the judges' proposed pay scale based on their own wage survey and instead applied a lower classification from a state personnel survey. The circuit court, after conducting its own inquiry into reasonable local compensation, ordered the Commission to implement the higher salaries, citing both the statute and the inherent administrative powers of the judiciary. The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the matter, addressing issues including judicial recusal and the balance of authority between branches of government. The core reasoning centered on statutory interpretation and the judiciary's need for control over essential support staff to maintain effective court operations.

procedurelabor & employment

This case involved a dispute over title to a tract of land in Alabama, where plaintiff Clarence Moody claimed ownership through a chain of wills from the Burgess family, while defendant Riley Stanfield asserted ownership based on a 1943 purchase from the Burgesses and subsequent possession. After the case was transferred to equity, an advisory jury found for Stanfield, and the Chancellor entered a decree holding that Stanfield had acquired fee simple title. The court found that Stanfield had built a home on the land, cleared portions of it, cut timber, and exercised other acts of ownership continuously and openly for more than twenty years without any claim by Moody or his predecessors. Under the doctrine of prescription and Alabama Code Section 36, Title 7, this adverse, peaceable, and continuous possession barred Moody's suit. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence supported the findings and that challenges to evidentiary rulings and jury instructions lacked merit.

property