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

This case involved John Deere seeking to recover a deficiency from Kilcrease after repossessing and selling logging equipment financed by John Deere, while Kilcrease counterclaimed alleging, among other things, that the sale was commercially unreasonable under Alabama's Uniform Commercial Code. The trial court entered judgment for John Deere on both the claim and counterclaim following a jury verdict. On appeal, the court reversed, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding testimony from Kilcrease's expert witness regarding the commercial reasonableness of the collateral's sale, as the witness had relevant experience in appraising and financing logging equipment. The court reasoned that the error was prejudicial and preserved for review because the record clearly indicated the purpose of the testimony, despite no formal offer of proof.

business & regulatoryprocedure

George Paul Decker and Max Davidson, owners of mobile home parks, sued Marshall-DeKalb Electric Cooperative for breach of contract, alleging that the cooperative's revised billing and metering procedures for park tenants violated a TVA power contract's prohibitions on submetering and resale of electricity, causing them lost profits and mental anguish. The trial court entered judgment on a jury verdict for the cooperative, and the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that substantial evidence supported the verdict, including testimony from TVA officials and cooperative managers that the three available plans (A, B, and C) did not constitute prohibited submetering or resale because the contract's restrictions were intended only to prevent distributors from reselling power to other utilities for profit, not to bar the park arrangements at issue. Prior related litigation had established the plaintiffs' standing as third-party beneficiaries, but the merits turned on contract interpretation and industry practice.

business & regulatoryfederal power

Ernest Smith sought an injunction to prohibit the Madison County Commission from enforcing its building code in unincorporated areas, claiming the Commission's authority had terminated under Alabama's Sunset Act. The trial court denied the injunction, and the appellate court affirmed. The court explained that Act No. 92-608 authorized both the creation of the Home Builders Licensure Board to regulate home builders and the empowerment of county commissions to adopt building codes, but the Board was not reviewed or terminated under the Sunset Act's procedures because it was newly established and not yet subject to the review cycle. As a result, the Board's non-termination meant the counties' statutory authority to enforce building codes remained intact.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved Alabama plaintiffs suing their former attorney for legal malpractice after their employment lawsuit, transferred to federal court in Texas, was allegedly mishandled and dismissed. The trial court dismissed the malpractice complaint for insufficient allegations of proximate cause and later struck the plaintiffs' amendment as untimely filed beyond the 21-day period. On appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court reversed, holding that the time for amending was equitably tolled during the plaintiffs' mandamus petition, making the June amendment timely, and that the original complaint's general proximate cause allegation combined with specific malpractice claims was sufficient under notice pleading standards to survive dismissal without needing explicit "but for" language. The court clarified that while plaintiffs bear a dual burden of proof on both the underlying claim and malpractice, the pleadings adequately stated the claim.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved debtors who sought to enjoin a bank from foreclosing on mortgages after they allegedly failed to make a required payment under a court-adopted stipulation agreement. The trial court denied the injunction and permitted foreclosure, finding that the debtors had not paid $15,000 by the August 31 deadline since the bank received the mailed payment on September 3. The court rejected the debtors' argument that the mailbox rule should apply to determine timeliness of payment, holding instead that payment by mail is effective only upon receipt unless the creditor has authorized or consented to that method.

propertyprocedure

In Paseur v. City of Huntsville, a firefighter sued the City for breach of contract after being promoted to fire driver-engineer at a 5% salary increase rather than the higher rate listed in a 1991 Career Opportunities Announcement, following the City Council's rescission of a policy providing larger promotional raises. The trial court granted summary judgment to the City, which the plaintiff appealed. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the Announcement was not a binding contractual offer but instead part of a multi-step hiring and selection process that only rendered qualified applicants eligible for consideration by the appointing authority. It reasoned that the plaintiff's completion of requirements and placement on the register created no enforceable right to the advertised salary, distinguishing the facts from cases treating employee handbooks as offers of employment.

labor & employment

The case involved a dispute over a timber sales agreement between Drennen Land & Timber Co. (and related parties) and landowner Kerry Privett, in which Drennen removed timber but Privett alleged it had misclassified timber types to reduce payments and failed to deliver some pulpwood. Privett pursued claims for breach of contract and conversion, leading to a jury verdict awarding compensatory damages on either theory and punitive damages only on conversion. The court held that the evidence showed only a breach of contract, not the tort of conversion, because Drennen had obtained the right to possession of the timber under the agreement and the dispute concerned only the amount of payment due. It therefore reversed the judgment on the conversion claim (including punitive damages), rendered judgment for the defendants on that theory, and conditionally affirmed the compensatory damages award while remanding for a new trial on the contract claim unless the parties agreed to the jury's compensatory amount.

propertytorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case involved a plaintiff's lawsuit seeking compensation under a consulting agreement for activities related to leasing commercial space to Wal-Mart, where the defendant moved for summary judgment based on the plaintiff's deposition testimony showing that the activities required a real estate broker license under Ala. Code § 34-27-30, which the plaintiff lacked. The trial court struck the plaintiff's later affidavit, which attempted to recharacterize the activities to avoid the licensing violation, because it contradicted his prior deposition without explanation, and ruled the contract void and unenforceable as it was not severable. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, adopting the lower court's analysis that the deposition established a clear violation of the statute and that contradictory affidavits cannot create triable issues of fact.

business & regulatoryprocedure

William Waites sued the University of Alabama Health Services Foundation and three neurosurgeons for medical malpractice under the Alabama Medical Liability Act, alleging that the doctors negligently delayed surgical evacuation of an epidural hematoma that developed after his cervical laminectomy, resulting in paralysis and emotional distress. The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment after striking the affidavit of the plaintiff's expert for lack of attached medical records and insufficient qualifications under the statute, while finding the defendants' affidavits sufficient. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the defendants had met their burden by presenting evidence that the hematoma was a known risk explained to the patient and that diagnosis and treatment occurred as promptly as possible, and that the plaintiff had failed to rebut that showing with admissible evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact.

torts & liabilityhealthcareprocedure

This case involved a breach of lease agreement lawsuit filed by Chuck Pardue and Downtown Stadium Inn, Inc. against Robert D. Potter and others for unpaid rent and wrongful possession, with the defendants filing counterclaims for breach of contract and other torts. After Pardue filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, which stayed the state court proceedings, the circuit court dismissed the action. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, reasoning that Pardue, as debtor in possession, failed to include a provision in his bankruptcy plan under 11 U.S.C. § 1123(b) to retain and enforce the pending state court action, resulting in abandonment of the claim, and the defendants did not pursue their rights in bankruptcy court.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case arose after a car accident victim treated at Carraway Methodist Medical Center incurred unpaid bills subject to a statutory hospital lien; the victim's lawyer, John H. Ufford II, negotiated a settlement and release with the insurer American Indemnity Company without disclosing the lien, leading Carraway to sue the insurer for impairing the lien and the insurer to file a third-party claim against Ufford alleging misrepresentation. The trial court granted summary judgment to the insurer on its misrepresentation claim against Ufford. On appeal, the court reversed, holding that the record contained no evidence supporting any element of actionable fraud or misrepresentation by Ufford and that the insurer had failed to make out a prima facie case for summary judgment.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved Deborah Gill's claims against Fidelity Financial Services, the assignee of her consumer credit contract for a used car purchase, based on alleged misrepresentations and breaches of warranty by the seller Auto Mart regarding the vehicle's condition. Gill sought damages and rescission after discovering the car had been wrecked and was unsafe, relying on the FTC-mandated notice in the contract that subjects any holder to claims and defenses the debtor could assert against the seller. The trial court dismissed the complaint, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the amended complaint stated a viable claim and that privity of contract between Gill and Fidelity was not required under 16 C.F.R. § 433.2. The court reasoned that the notice imposes vicarious liability on the assignee/creditor for the seller's actions, limited to amounts paid by the debtor, making Fidelity subject to the same claims provable against the seller.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involved a dispute between Louisiana Well Service Company (LWS) and MetFuel, Inc., over unpaid invoices totaling about $1.75 million for drilling services on methane gas wells in Alabama, governed by Mississippi law. After LWS filed suit in Alabama to perfect a lien and enforce the contracts, MetFuel sought summary judgment on the ground that the contracts were unenforceable because LWS lacked a required Alabama general contractor's license; the trial court initially agreed, but the Alabama Supreme Court reversed, holding that LWS was not a general contractor. LWS then moved under Alabama Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) to dismiss the action without prejudice, which the trial court granted over MetFuel's objection. The Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that the trial court did not abuse its discretion because MetFuel had not shown prejudice, the proceedings had not advanced beyond an early stage on the merits, and the motion was timely.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In this case, Deborah Zanders sued her own uninsured motorist insurer, ALFA, for damages exceeding the policy limits she had already recovered from the at-fault driver in an auto accident. During jury selection, both parties raised Batson challenges alleging racially discriminatory peremptory strikes; the trial court found violations by both sides, ordered a new jury selection from the same venire, and ruled that a prior criminal conviction was not a valid race-neutral reason for a strike in a civil trial, compelling Zanders to accept a juror with such a conviction. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial. It held that a connection with or founded suspicion of criminal activity constitutes a legitimate race-neutral reason for exercising a peremptory challenge, extending the principle from Ex parte Williams to civil cases. The court reasoned that Batson prohibits racial discrimination in jury selection but does not eliminate peremptory challenges supported by nonracial justifications, and public policy favors preserving such challenges to promote fair trials.

procedurecivil rights