Richard L. Jones

The case involved three consolidated appeals concerning the legality of outdoor advertising signs erected by Lamar Advertising, Headrick Outdoor Advertising, and Dyess Outdoor Advertising along Alabama interstate highways. The signs had been built between 1983 and 1988 pursuant to permits issued by the City of Montgomery on land zoned agricultural, residential, or planned-unit development, but the State Department of Transportation sought their removal under the Alabama Highway Beautification Act (Ala. Code 1975, § 23-1-270 et seq.). On remand from earlier Supreme Court decisions, the trial court granted summary judgment for the State, finding the signs illegal; the Supreme Court reviewed that ruling. The court affirmed that the signs were erected in violation of the Act because the statute limits permissible locations to "business areas," which expressly exclude agricultural zones and require zoning for commercial, industrial, or business activities; the City's contrary permits could not override the state law definition.

business & regulatoryenvironmentproperty

The case involves Julia McCain Lampkin Asam appealing an order of the Alabama State Bar disbarring her after a disciplinary proceeding. The Bar filed five complaints with 28 charges based on grievances from Asam's representation in civil actions, her 1992 judicial campaign, and lawsuits she filed against judges and others; the Disciplinary Board found her guilty of 17 charges, including violations of rules against frivolous filings, lack of competent representation, false statements to tribunals, and conduct reflecting poorly on her fitness to practice. The Board imposed disbarment plus requirements to pay court sanctions, retake the bar exam and professional responsibility test, and submit to a mental competency evaluation. The court affirmed the order in full, finding the Board's determinations supported by the record of Asam's repeated misconduct across the complaints.

procedure

This case involved a dispute between neighboring subdivision lot owners in Helena, Alabama, over use of a publicly dedicated right-of-way strip of land between the front lot lines and the street curb. Plaintiff Kizer sued for a declaration of rights after complaints about her dogs using the strip, while defendant lot owners counterclaimed for trespass, claiming exclusive possession based on their maintenance of the area as part of their lawns. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, ruling they could treat the strip as private property until the city improved it. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statutory dedication under § 35-2-50 gave the public superior rights in the right-of-way, that the lot owners were merely permissive users without an estate sufficient to support a trespass claim, and that nonuse by the city did not abandon the dedication or alter the priority of public rights.

property

This case involves Stephen Alexander suing his former employer, Jitney Jungle Stores of America, Inc., for retaliatory termination under Ala. Code 1975, § 25-5-11.1 after he was injured on the job, received workers' compensation benefits, and pursued a claim. The trial court granted summary judgment to the employer based on its application of an absentee policy, but the Alabama Supreme Court reversed and remanded. The court reasoned that Alexander established a prima facie case of retaliation and offered rebuttal evidence of inconsistent employer actions and timing around his benefits and return-to-work efforts, creating a jury question on whether the absentee policy was a pretext under the Twilley burden-shifting framework, distinguishing the case from Hayden v. Bruno's.

labor & employment

Lillian Wassman sued the Mobile County Communications District for the wrongful death of her son, alleging negligence in emergency services, and a jury awarded her $1,000,000 in damages. The trial court applied a statutory cap limiting recovery against governmental entities to $100,000 and granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict, finding insufficient evidence of proximate cause. On appeal, the court held that the MCCD qualifies as a governmental entity under Ala. Code §§ 11-93-1 and -2, based on its creation as a political subdivision by county ordinance under Act No. 84-369 and precedents like Guntersville Housing Authority. However, the court reversed the JNOV, concluding that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, supported the jury's finding of proximate cause regarding the timing of respiratory arrest and medical intervention. The case was remanded with instructions to enter judgment on the verdict but reduced to the $100,000 cap.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves a wrongful death lawsuit filed by Linda B. Parr against Champion International Corporation and Brown & Root, U.S.A., Inc., after her husband, an employee of a subcontractor, died from injuries sustained in a fall at a construction project on Champion's paper mill. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, but the Alabama Supreme Court reversed, holding that there was substantial evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendants retained sufficient control over the manner and method of the decedent's work to establish a duty to provide a safe workplace. The court reasoned that evidence of the defendants' rules, inspections, and authority over safety measures could support a finding of a master-servant relationship rather than a pure independent contractor arrangement, based on precedents like Mead Coated Board, Inc. v. Dempsey. Therefore, the case was remanded for further proceedings.

torts & liabilitylabor & employmentprocedure