Harold See

Robert Keyon Wimes was convicted of first-degree robbery based on the victim's in-court identification of him as one of the attackers. Wimes challenged the identification, arguing that it stemmed from an impermissibly suggestive pretrial show-up procedure at a house where the victim viewed suspects one at a time shortly after the crime. The trial court overruled the objection, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction, and the Alabama Supreme Court granted certiorari to examine a potential conflict with its earlier decision in Ex parte Appleton regarding due-process limits on suggestive identifications. After review, the Court concluded that the facts did not establish a conflict and quashed the writ, leaving the conviction in place.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a 10-year-old boy who suffered a severed foot after climbing onto a stopped Norfolk Southern train on the railroad's private property in Birmingham, Alabama, leading his parents to sue the railroad companies for negligence, wantonness, and the tort of outrage. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, and the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed that ruling on rehearing. The court held that the railroads owed the minor trespasser only a limited duty to avoid willful or wanton injury and to exercise reasonable care after discovering him in a position of peril, which was not breached here. It further determined that the attractive nuisance doctrine did not apply given the boy's age and the circumstances, and that no genuine issues of material fact existed regarding any violation of duty by the railroad.

torts & liabilityproperty

This case concerned a petition for a writ of certiorari filed with the Alabama Supreme Court to review a decision from the Court of Civil Appeals in Dyess v. Bay John Developers II, L.L.C. The court decided to quash the petition, thereby declining further review of the lower court's ruling. In its order, the court expressly stated that quashing the petition should not be understood as approval of all language, reasons, or statements of law in the Court of Civil Appeals' opinion, citing Horsley v. Horsley as precedent.

procedure

The case involved Sherry Hereford's breach-of-warranty claim against homebuilder D.R. Horton after water damage from an HVAC pipe leak led to mold issues in a newly purchased house; the contract's limited warranty disclaimed consequential damages and required arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act. The arbitrator granted summary judgment to Horton, concluding that Hereford's claimed damages were either covered by insurance or barred as consequential. Hereford appealed to the trial court and then the Alabama Supreme Court, arguing the award should be vacated because the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law by enforcing the warranty's damage exclusion. The Supreme Court affirmed the confirmation of the award, holding that under Hall Street Associates v. Mattel and the text of the FAA, manifest disregard of the law is not an independent ground for vacating an arbitrator's decision, which is limited to the statutory grounds in 9 U.S.C. § 10(a).

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a commercial lease dispute between tenants of a shopping center in Baldwin County and its owner AIG Baker and agent Rouzie, originally filed in Jefferson Circuit Court. After AIG Baker answered without challenging venue, the tenants moved to transfer the case to Baldwin County under Alabama's forum non conveniens statute on grounds of convenience for parties and witnesses. The trial court granted the transfer, ruling that AIG Baker had waived any objection to improper venue in Jefferson County, thereby making that forum appropriate for the motion. The Alabama Supreme Court granted mandamus relief and vacated the transfer order, holding that the forum non conveniens statute applies only where the action was initially filed in a county with proper venue.

procedure

James Robinson, an inmate, filed a declaratory-judgment action in Bibb Circuit Court challenging a disciplinary action by the Alabama Department of Corrections. The Bibb court transferred the case to Montgomery Circuit Court and converted it to a petition for a writ of certiorari, which the Montgomery court then dismissed. Robinson appealed, and after transfers between appellate courts, the Alabama Supreme Court addressed the proper forum for review. Relying on precedents such as Ex parte Boykins and Collins v. Alabama Department of Corrections, the court held that the Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction over appeals from certiorari petitions challenging DOC decisions on inmate conduct, as such actions fall under administrative agency review procedures excluding direct appeals under the Alabama Administrative Procedure Act. The Supreme Court therefore transferred the appeal back to the Court of Criminal Appeals.

criminal lawprocedure