Roy S. Moore

The case involved the Flannigans' petition to dismiss an appeal by Lynn Jordan to the Montgomery Circuit Court from a probate court order removing her as administratrix of Jeffrey Flannigan's estate. Jordan had filed a motion for reconsideration after the seven-day appeal deadline under § 12-22-21(3), Ala. Code 1975, had passed, and then appealed after that motion was denied. The Alabama Supreme Court held that the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the appeal was untimely. The court reasoned that a post-judgment motion cannot toll a limitations period that has already expired, and the statute requires appeals from such probate orders to be taken within seven days.

procedurefamily law

This case involves a workers' compensation claim filed by Emma Riddle against Southern Energy Homes, Inc., alleging that she suffered permanent total disability from back injuries sustained in two workplace incidents in 1996 and 1997. The trial court awarded her benefits based on a finding of 100% permanent and total disability, which the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. On certiorari review, the Supreme Court of Alabama reversed and remanded, concluding that Riddle had not presented substantial evidence of permanent total disability under the Workers' Compensation Act because medical records showed only degenerative conditions without objective impairment findings or physician-imposed work restrictions, and Riddle had not sought further employment.

labor & employment

The case involved the State's challenge to the Court of Criminal Appeals' reversal of Antywan Wilson's convictions for first-degree robbery and attempted murder, stemming from the prosecution's delayed disclosure of police notes on witness interviews that identified different suspects. The Supreme Court of Alabama granted certiorari to review whether the nondisclosure of this potentially exculpatory evidence amounted to reversible error under discovery rules. The Court reversed the appellate decision and remanded the case, concluding that the witness names had been provided to the defense well before trial, the trial court had properly allowed cross-examination of the detective and a witness to mitigate any prejudice, and the evidence did not meet the threshold for requiring a mistrial or new trial. The reasoning emphasized that the information was not suppressed in a manner that undermined the fairness of the proceedings, distinguishing it from Brady violations that would necessitate reversal.

criminal lawprocedure

Janice Folmar sued Empire Fire and Marine Insurance Company for slander of title, alleging that a mortgage lien filed on her home in 1996 without her signature became actionable when Empire refused her 2000 and 2001 requests to remove it. The trial court granted summary judgment to Empire, and the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that slander of title under Alabama law requires a false statement to be published both falsely and maliciously at the time of publication, that Folmar conceded the original filing lacked malice, and that a later refusal to remove the lien does not satisfy the elements of a new publication.

propertytorts & liabilityprocedure

In 2000, Alabama State University fired its head football coach, Ronald Dickerson, who then sued the university, its president, and board members over the termination, raising various claims including a due-process violation seeking equitable relief. The trial court dismissed most claims on sovereign and state-agent immunity grounds but left the due-process claim intact and did not certify the partial dismissal as final under Rule 54(b). Dickerson appealed the denial of his post-judgment motion, but the Alabama Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court reasoned that the order was not a final judgment because it did not resolve all claims as to all parties and lacked the required express determination of no just reason for delay.

civil rightsprocedurelabor & employment

The case involved Conseco Finance Corporation appealing the trial court's denial of its motion to compel arbitration of Nora Slay's counterclaim, in which she alleged that her signature on a mobile home purchase contract was a forgery. The Supreme Court of Alabama dismissed the appeal as not ripe for review. The court reasoned that the trial court's oral and written rulings could be read as either a conditional or absolute denial of arbitration, but no jury had yet resolved the forgery issue and the trial court had not applied any such construction, so Conseco had not yet suffered any harm from a final denial. The court noted that appeals must involve an existing controversy rather than speculative future events and that it must dismiss the matter on its own for lack of jurisdiction.

procedure