Champ Lyons

This case involved Alabama boat dealership companies and their guarantors who were sued by or brought claims against Textron, Inc., Textron Financial Corporation, and an individual executive over financing agreements for boat inventory. The Textron defendants petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to compel the St. Clair Circuit Court to dismiss the claims based on forum-selection clauses in the 2006, 2007, and 2008 credit and security agreements, which designated Rhode Island courts as the exclusive forum. The court granted the petition in part, holding that the clauses were valid and enforceable against the corporate plaintiffs Ryan Creek Acquisitions, Alabama Boating Centers, and Logan Martin Boating Center, requiring dismissal of their claims without prejudice. It denied the petition as to the individual guarantors and Ryan Creek Boating Center, Inc., finding insufficient basis to dismiss their claims under the clauses. The core reasoning focused on the clear language of the forum-selection provisions and the plaintiffs' consent to Rhode Island jurisdiction in the contracts.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, Darryl Clayton sued LLB Timber Company and driver William George Henderson for negligence after Henderson's parked truck rolled into Clayton's truck at a truck stop, injuring Clayton. The trial court gave a jury instruction on mechanical failure as a defense over Clayton's objection, and the jury returned a verdict for the defendants. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the mechanical-failure instruction was improper because no evidence supported the occurrence of any mechanical failure.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case Nix v. Wick involved buyers Martha Nix and Charles Upham who, after purchasing a house and 4.5 acres from Skip and Christie Wick under an April 2008 contract, sought to enforce a related addendum and April 22 contract granting an option to buy at least five adjacent acres at $32,500 per acre. The buyers sued the Wicks and joint owner James Robert Oldfield for specific performance of the land option, breach of contract, and fraudulent misrepresentation, and alternatively for rescission of the house sale due to alleged misrepresentations about the location and availability of the adjacent land. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment for the defendants, holding that the option agreement was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds because it lacked a sufficient legal description of the land and could not be located from the writing alone. The court also rejected the rescission claim, concluding that the buyers had no basis to unwind the completed house purchase based on the separate, unenforceable promise.

propertyprocedure

Dean Edwards sued Baldwin Mutual Insurance Company for breach of contract, alleging that the insurer failed to include a 20% amount for contractor overhead and profit when calculating the actual cash value of damage to his home from Hurricane Katrina under his homeowner's policy. Edwards sought to represent a class of other Alabama policyholders with similar claims. The trial court certified a revised version of the proposed class after an evidentiary hearing. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed the certification, holding that the revised class definition materially differed from the one considered at the hearing and that the trial court failed to hold a new evidentiary hearing or conduct a rigorous analysis as required by Alabama Code § 6-5-641.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

Several Alabama legislators who were employed or sought employment in the two-year college system sued the State Board of Education to challenge two policies it adopted in 2007: Policy 609.04, which required employees to use personal, annual, or unpaid leave for outside employment or activities during normal work hours, and Policy 220.01, which generally prohibited the system from employing elected state officials, entering personal-services contracts with them, or contracting with entities in which they held significant financial interests, while also imposing resign-to-run requirements. The trial court declared both policies void under various statutes and constitutional provisions and permanently enjoined their enforcement. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the policies were lawful internal-management rules that did not violate the Administrative Procedure Act, the Fair Dismissal Act, section 17-1-4, or constitutional separation-of-powers and office-qualification provisions, and were consistent with established precedent upholding resign-to-run requirements for public employees.

electionslabor & employment

In Walker v. City of Huntsville, Julia Huff Walker sued the City of Huntsville, its former police chief, and two officers after her 2002 arrest for DUI and improper vehicle stopping, which occurred while she was actually suffering from a brain aneurysm; she brought federal constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 along with state-law tort claims including false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, negligence, and others. The federal district court granted summary judgment on the § 1983 claims, and after remand the state trial court granted summary judgment on the remaining claims. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the state claims were barred by collateral estoppel based on the federal ruling, that the individual officers were protected by state-agent immunity, that the City was entitled to municipal immunity, and that Walker failed to present substantial evidence supporting her claims.

civil rightscriminal lawproceduretorts & liability

Carlton Reashard Lane was convicted of murder and, as a habitual felony offender with two prior convictions, was sentenced to 120 years' imprisonment under § 13A-5-9(b)(3) of the Habitual Felony Offender Act. The Court of Criminal Appeals sua sponte reversed the sentence, holding that the statutory phrase 'for any term of not less than 99 years' established 99 years as the maximum term short of life imprisonment. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the plain language of the statute sets a minimum sentence of 99 years, a maximum of life imprisonment, and permits any term of years in between. The case was remanded for the Court of Criminal Appeals to address Lane's remaining argument that the sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.

criminal law

This case involved a petition to the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari seeking review of a decision by the Court of Civil Appeals. The court denied the petition, allowing the lower court's ruling to stand. In its order, the court included a standard disclaimer that the denial should not be read as approval of all language, reasoning, or legal statements in the Court of Civil Appeals' opinion, citing Horsley v. Horsley as authority for that practice. No further substantive analysis or explanation of the underlying dispute was provided in the opinion.

procedure

This case involved United Bank suing Bon Harbor, LLC, and guarantors including Michael F. Hinds to recover over $7.5 million on promissory notes secured by a mortgage on real property purchased with the loan proceeds, plus alternative claims for reformation or equitable remedies; Bon Harbor and Hinds asserted counterclaims and third-party claims for breach of duty, fraud, suppression, and declaratory relief. After prior appeals were dismissed for lack of finality and jurisdiction, the trial court granted summary judgment to the bank and its employees, entered a final damages award exceeding $8 million with foreclosure, and dismissed the counterclaims. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed, upholding the trial court's rulings on the validity of the notes, mortgage, and guaranties while rejecting the defendants' claims.

business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability

The case centered on investors in Bon Harbor, LLC, who sued its managers (Hinds and Kirkland) and affiliated entities for claims including fraudulent misrepresentation, securities fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and conspiracy, alleging that the 2005 purchase price of Baldwin County property was misrepresented and that profits were concealed from the investors. The Baldwin Circuit Court dismissed most claims on grounds including statutes of limitations, lack of standing, and insufficient pleading. On appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of some claims but reversed as to others, reasoning that fraudulent concealment could toll the limitations period for both fraud and certain non-fraud claims under Ala. Code § 6-2-3, that the investors had standing to assert direct claims, and that the complaint adequately pleaded particular facts to survive dismissal, while remanding the case for further proceedings.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case concerned a wrongful-death action brought by the personal representative of a toddler's estate against several Jefferson County DHR employees, alleging that their negligent or willful failures to investigate a reported child-abuse allegation allowed the child to suffer fatal injuries weeks later. Several defendants petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for writs of mandamus directing the trial court to enter summary judgment in their favor on state-agent-immunity grounds. The Court granted the petitions as to Jones, Henderson, and Walter, finding their conduct fell within the scope of protected discretionary functions, but denied the petitions as to Eubanks and Wilson because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether they had properly filed or acted on the initial investigation report. The core reasoning rested on the Cranman framework for state-agent immunity and the principle that factual disputes about bad-faith or ultra-vires conduct preclude summary disposition.

torts & liabilityfamily lawprocedure

This case concerns a class action by taxpayers challenging Jefferson County's occupational tax, which was authorized by a 1967 Act but repealed by a 1999 Act; after prior litigation invalidated the tax, the legislature passed a 2009 Act attempting to ratify collections retroactively and repeal the 1999 Act. The trial court denied the County's motion to dissolve an injunction, ordered escrowed tax funds transferred for refunds covering the period between the two acts, and held that the 2009 Act violated §95 of the Alabama Constitution by interfering with pending causes of action. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the December 23, 2009 order while reversing the January 15, 2010 order, addressing issues of waiver, estoppel, and the constitutionality of retroactive ratification in light of the prohibition on legislative interference with existing suits. The core reasoning centered on interpreting §95's limits on legislative power regarding pending litigation and the scope of the 2009 Act's savings clause and ratification provisions.

taxesprocedure

In Houston v. Jackson Hospital & Clinic, Inc., the plaintiff sued the defendant hospital for medical malpractice, and the trial court granted summary judgment to the hospital after the plaintiff failed to properly oppose the motion with expert testimony. The plaintiff then filed a motion to vacate the summary judgment, but the trial court did not rule on it until more than 90 days later, purporting to set aside the judgment following a hearing. The Alabama Supreme Court granted the hospital's petition for a writ of mandamus, holding that the trial court's order was void because under Rule 59.1 of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, the motion was denied by operation of law after 90 days without an extension, and an oral statement at the hearing did not constitute a proper disposition of the motion.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved Tennessee Health Management, Inc. appealing the denial of its motion to compel arbitration in a lawsuit brought by the estate of a former nursing home resident alleging negligence and other claims arising from her care. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed the trial court's order, holding that the arbitration agreement signed by the resident's daughter was valid and enforceable against the resident. The court reasoned that the daughter had apparent authority to bind the resident because the resident did not object to her signing the admission documents and there was no evidence of the resident's mental incompetence. The agreement explicitly allowed for signatures by family members responsible for the resident and was not a condition of admission.

procedurehealthcaretorts & liability

The case involves John Michael Ward, who was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death in 1998. After his direct appeals failed, Ward filed a Rule 32 petition for postconviction relief in 2005, well after the one-year limitations period in Rule 32.2(c) had expired in 2003. The trial court summarily dismissed the petition as time-barred, and the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. In an earlier appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court held that the limitations period is not jurisdictional and adopted the doctrine of equitable tolling for extraordinary circumstances beyond a petitioner's control. In this opinion, the court held that Ward should be permitted to benefit from equitable tolling despite not raising the issue in his original petition, reversed the judgment below, and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on whether the limitations period should be tolled based on the circumstances of his multiple attorneys and filings.

criminal lawprocedure

In Ex Parte Excelsior Financial, Inc., Alabama residents Jeanie and Lowell Tillis sued Excelsior Financial, a Georgia corporation, along with other defendants, alleging fraudulent inducement, suppression, misrepresentation, negligent hiring and supervision, and breach of fiduciary duty related to the conversion of life insurance policies. Excelsior petitioned for a writ of mandamus after the trial court denied its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Alabama Supreme Court granted the petition, holding that Excelsior lacked sufficient contacts with Alabama, as the allegations of agency relationships and conspiracy in the complaint were either refuted by affidavits or lacked specificity, and there were no allegations that Excelsior purposefully directed actions toward Alabama independent of those claims.

proceduretorts & liability

Mario Dewayne Acoff was convicted of first-degree robbery in 2004 and sentenced to 22 years in prison. In a 2008 Rule 32 petition, he alleged that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the judgment because the jury venire and petit jury had not been sworn. The trial court dismissed the petition, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, and the Alabama Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the ruling. The court held that a minute entry on the case-action summary stating the jury was "duly selected and sworn" is sufficient to establish that the oath was administered and is presumed correct absent a timely postjudgment motion raising the issue, with no conflict created by the trial transcript's silence on the swearing.

criminal lawprocedure

Kappa Sigma Fraternity appealed from Mobile Circuit Court orders enforcing an oral settlement agreement reached during trial in a personal injury action brought by Ryan Price-Williams, who was assaulted at a fraternity-hosted party and sued the chapter, national fraternity, and individual assailants on assault and negligence theories. The Supreme Court of Alabama denied a motion to dismiss one appeal for lack of jurisdiction and affirmed both trial court orders, concluding that the settlement stated on the record in open court was binding on the chapter under Alabama law authorizing attorneys to bind clients by agreements entered in court. The court further held that the agreement resolved only the chapter's liability, did not release the individual defendants, and was properly enforced by the trial court based on counsel's statements without improper reliance on parol evidence.

proceduretorts & liability

The case centered on landowners Helen Kathryn Wheeler and others who sued multiple Alabama government entities, officials, and companies—including the City of Montgomery, Montgomery County, the Industrial Development Board, Hyundai, and CSX—over the process of obtaining land options to assemble a site as an incentive for Hyundai to build an automobile plant in Montgomery. Plaintiffs alleged issues with the contracts, valuations, and actions taken to secure the property for the project. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court's summary judgments for the defendants, upholding many dismissals based on immunities, standing, and contract interpretations while reversing on select claims and remanding; it also affirmed the denial of a motion to dismiss in the cross-appeal by Mayor Todd Strange.

propertybusiness & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involved Ronnie Robinson, an Alabama resident acting as a subcontractor for Sverdrup Technology, Inc. (a company with offices in Alabama), suing in Alabama circuit court over events in Tennessee related to inventory work on a U.S. Air Force project; Robinson asserted claims including breach of contract and intentional misrepresentation under Tennessee law after Sverdrup allegedly made false statements about future subcontract opportunities. The trial court denied Sverdrup's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, which was raised only after amended complaints, and a jury awarded Robinson $78,000 in compensatory damages on the intentional misrepresentation claim. On appeal and rehearing, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that Sverdrup had waived any personal jurisdiction defense by failing to assert it in its initial answer or first motion to dismiss as required by Alabama Rule of Civil Procedure 12, and that sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict on the misrepresentation claim.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory