Pelham J. Merrill

The case involved the City of Birmingham's attempt to annex territory in Pinson Valley through an election under Alabama statutes. After the election initially defeated the annexation but was contested and overturned in probate court, the circuit court set aside the election due to multiple errors, including gerrymandering of boundaries. The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed, holding that Birmingham's practice of drawing boundaries to include favorable voters and exclude opponents created unreasonable islands or enclaves of non-voters, violating the reasonableness test for annexations and constitutional protections.

electionscivil rights

The case involved a dispute over possession of a mobile home financed through a retail installment contract with Third National Bank and a counterclaim by the buyers, the Gigandets, seeking a refund of payments made. The buyers had ceased payments due to alleged defects, notified the manufacturer and bank of their intent to revoke acceptance under the UCC, and vacated the home, but the bank sued in detinue after the buyers retained control. The trial court ruled for the bank on both the detinue claim and the counterclaim, and the appellate court affirmed. The core reasoning was that the buyers did not justifiably revoke acceptance because their post-notice use of the home was inconsistent with cancellation, notice may not have been timely, there was no evidence of substantial impairment of value from the defects, and they refused the bank's repair attempts.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case involved a licensed real estate broker, William K. Nicrosi, who was hired verbally by First Southern Federal Savings and Loan Association to locate and negotiate the purchase of new corporate quarters in Montgomery. Nicrosi helped secure the Greystone Hotel building for $485,000 and later sued for the reasonable value of his services, seeking $48,500; the trial court awarded him $32,095. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the judgment, holding that the verdict was supported by credible and substantial evidence and applying the presumption that the trial court's denial of a new trial strengthened the correctness of the award. The court reviewed only the evidence favorable to the verdict and found no basis to overturn it under established standards for sufficiency of evidence.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case concerns a petition by Billy Ray Cooper for a writ of certiorari asking the Alabama Supreme Court to review and revise a judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals in Cooper v. State, 57 Ala. App. ___, 331 So.2d 752. The court denied the petition without further review. Four justices concurred in the denial. No additional reasoning or facts about the underlying criminal matter are provided in the opinion.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a Jefferson County employee, Freeman, who sought additional longevity pay for his prior years of service with the county and the City of Homewood after transfers between the two under Personnel Board rules. The trial court denied the claim, and the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that the county commission's 1973 resolution limited longevity calculations to uninterrupted full-time service with Jefferson County, and Freeman's transfers created an interruption not covered by the provision. Although other employment benefits credited his prior service, the personnel rules did not address longevity, so there was no conflict, and the county's consistent administrative practice supported excluding interrupted service.

labor & employment

This case involved the revocation of Cook's driver's license by the Director of Public Safety after a municipal court record indicated a conviction for driving while intoxicated, despite later corrective records showing a conviction only for possession of an automobile while intoxicated. The trial court granted Cook an injunction ordering return of the license and excluded evidence offered by the State about the municipal court's routine practice of altering DWI records, a decision affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed, holding that evidence of the court's routine practice was admissible because it met the criteria of regularity and similarity, allowing inferences about the accuracy of the original record. The court remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this ruling on evidence admissibility.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute over possession of a used Caterpillar tractor, with Trax, Inc. filing a detinue and conversion action after Tidmore failed to pay rent or purchase the equipment following repairs, and Tidmore counterclaiming for possession and breach of warranty. The jury awarded Tidmore the tractor or its alternative value plus damages for unlawful detention, and the trial court denied Trax's motion for a new trial. On appeal, the court reversed the judgment, reasoning that no implied warranty of merchantability or fitness under UCC §§ 2-314 or 2-315 applied because Tidmore had selected and previously owned the tractor, knew its condition better than Trax, and showed no reliance on Trax's skill or judgment in the transaction, which may not even have constituted a sale.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned a petition for certiorari filed by Glenn West seeking review of a decision by the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals in West v. State, 57 Ala. App. 596, 329 So.2d 653. The Alabama Supreme Court denied the writ, leaving the lower court's judgment in place. No additional reasoning or analysis was provided in the opinion, which simply noted concurrence by the Chief Justice and three associate justices.

criminal lawprocedure

The petitioner, Donald Mitchell, filed for certiorari asking the Alabama Supreme Court to review and revise the Court of Criminal Appeals' decision in Mitchell v. State. The Supreme Court denied the writ. All participating justices concurred in the denial, leaving the lower court's judgment undisturbed without additional review.

criminal law

The case involved a dispute between Annie Battle Gunnels and her son over ownership of funds in a joint savings account at Dothan Federal Savings and Loan Association. Gunnels filed for a declaratory judgment to be declared sole owner of the approximately $12,000 account, which had been opened as joint tenants with right of survivorship and included signature card language stating the deposits were intended as gifts. The trial court denied relief, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the written contract terms conclusively established donative intent without ambiguity, fraud, or misrepresentation, that parol evidence could not vary those terms, and that possession of the certificate by one co-owner benefited both. The court rejected arguments of duress or lack of delivery based on the evidence presented.

propertyfamily law

The case involved a petition by George M. Hamaker to the Alabama Supreme Court seeking a writ of certiorari to review and revise a judgment from the Court of Civil Appeals in Hamaker v. Hamaker. The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari. As a result, the decision of the Court of Civil Appeals remains in effect without further review by the state's highest court. The denial was joined by all participating justices without additional discussion or dissent.

family law

The case concerned Herman Jones's petition to the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review and revise the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals' judgment in his criminal matter. The court denied the writ. The decision was joined by the Chief Justice and three associate justices, with no further explanation provided in the opinion.

criminal law

This case involved the propriety of an injunction issued against Shearn Moody, Jr., barring him from filing or aiding further lawsuits that would interfere with the receivership of Empire Life Insurance Company of America, an Alabama insurer placed under receivership in 1972 due to insolvency. The receivership court had approved a plan to liquidate and reinsure Empire's policies with Protective Life Insurance Company after a competitive bidding process in which Moody also participated and objected. Moody, as intervenor and former principal of Empire, pursued multiple related lawsuits in Alabama and other states, which the receiver claimed depleted estate assets and hindered implementation of the court's orders. The trial court granted a temporary restraining order and permanent injunction based on evidence of this ongoing litigation and threats of more suits. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the injunction, reasoning that the suits constituted improper interference with the receivership proceedings and the June 1974 liquidation order.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned a petition filed by Leroy Wilson, Jr. for a writ of certiorari seeking review and revision of the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals' judgment in his underlying criminal matter. The Alabama Supreme Court denied the petition without further elaboration on the merits. The denial leaves the lower court's decision in place as final. Four justices concurred in the ruling.

criminal law

This case involved a dispute between family members over the placement of a large monument by the owners of one cemetery lot in a five-foot easement separating it from an adjacent lot owned by the plaintiff, which allegedly reduced the walkway to three feet, obstructed views, and caused emotional distress; the plaintiff also claimed grave desecration after the cemetery moved the monument slightly. The trial court dismissed the claims against the relatives, set aside a default against the cemetery and its manager, and granted summary judgment in their favor after hearings on the issues. On appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's factual findings were not plainly erroneous under the ore tenus presumption, that the plaintiff lacked standing to sue alone for grave desecration under prior precedent requiring all next of kin of the same degree to join, and that any procedural objections to notice on summary judgment were waived. The court also found no error in the handling of the trespass and easement claims based on conflicting testimony.

propertytorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a contract dispute where R. N. Kelly Cotton Merchant, Inc. sued Charles T. Cox, Jr., a cotton handler, for failing to deliver 680 bales of cotton as agreed under three contracts at prices of 34 to 36 cents per pound. Cox had purchased the cotton from farmers but faced rising prices that led to non-delivery, and Kelly sought damages after covering its own obligations to another buyer. The trial court awarded Kelly approximately $16,600 in damages based on the market price of cotton at the time of trial. The appellate court reversed this award, holding that the trial court erred in finding Kelly had not covered the cotton and in using the trial-date market price for damages instead of the statutory measure under Alabama's Commercial Code. The court remanded the case for recalculation of damages as the difference between Kelly's actual cover cost (averaging 78.46 cents per pound) and the contract price, plus any incidental or consequential damages.

business & regulatory

The case involved a dispute between Midfield Park, Inc., the owner of a shopping center, and Birmingham Trust National Bank over the interpretation of a 1969 agreement that accompanied the sale of a parcel of land for a branch bank. The agreement granted mutual rights of ingress and egress across the properties and prohibited uses that would interfere with the free flow of automobile traffic between the bank, the shopping center, and public roads. After the bank constructed a curb along the shared boundary that blocked access, Midfield sought a declaratory judgment and injunction. The trial court ruled that the curb violated the agreement and issued an injunction, which the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the contract's plain language and the parties' intent required open access and that any ambiguity would be construed against the bank as the drafter.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case involved appeals from summary judgments awarding life insurance proceeds to Mrs. Croft as beneficiary on policies covering her deceased husband. The trial court granted summary judgment after considering her acquittal by reason of insanity in the related criminal prosecution for his murder, finding no genuine issues of material fact. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that a criminal acquittal does not conclusively resolve factual questions in a civil proceeding due to differing parties, evidentiary rules, and burdens of proof, leaving material facts in dispute for trial. The court also denied a motion to dismiss the appeal.

procedurecriminal lawfamily law

The case involved Savannah Windsor suing GMAC after the repossession of her automobile due to delinquent payments on an installment contract, claiming conversion of the car and personal property as well as invasion of privacy; her mother Lue Bertha also sued for harassment and invasion of privacy related to collection efforts. The trial court directed verdicts for GMAC on most claims and the jury found for GMAC on the remaining personal property conversion issue, which the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that GMAC's collection efforts were reasonable and not an unreasonable invasion of privacy under precedents balancing creditor and debtor rights, the repossession was authorized by the UCC after default, and handling of personal property followed the contract terms. Errors regarding jury instructions were waived for lack of objection.

propertytorts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case concerns a statutory quiet title action under Alabama Code Tit. 7, § 1109 involving a 0.87-acre tract of land. Plaintiff Adams initially sued in ejectment, then amended to seek to quiet title after defendant Cooper was substituted following a conveyance. The trial court granted summary judgment to Adams declaring him the fee simple owner based on motions, exhibits, and affidavits. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed and remanded, ruling that the plaintiff failed to meet the statutory requirement of proving quiet and peaceable possession, as the uncontradicted affidavit showed actual possession and rental activity by the defendant creating disputed possession. Matters outside the record, such as an abstract or trial court affidavit, could not be considered on appeal.

propertyprocedure