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

The case involved Roger Tavares Malone, Jr., who was tried for murder after shooting and killing Searcy Owens during an argument at a pool hall; he was convicted of the lesser offense of manslaughter. The trial court allowed jurors to ask questions directly of witnesses throughout the trial, including one question posed to Malone after both sides had rested their cases, over Malone's general objection to the practice. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that trial courts have discretion to invite and permit juror questions in criminal cases as long as safeguards are used, such as written submission of questions, review by the judge and counsel, and the judge posing the questions neutrally, and that the procedure here did not deny Malone his constitutional rights.

criminal lawprocedure

In Birmingham Coal & Coke Company, Inc. v. Johnson, residents living near a surface coal mine sued the mining company for damage to their houses allegedly caused by vibrations from blasting operations conducted between 2001 and 2004, asserting claims including negligence. Following a bench trial, the trial court awarded the plaintiffs damages for property repairs and diminution in value, as well as an equal amount for mental anguish and emotional distress. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the property damage award, applying Restatement (Second) of Torts principles to hold that blasting is an abnormally dangerous activity subjecting the operator to strict liability for resulting harm to land. The court reversed the mental anguish award, concluding that such damages are available only in cases involving a zone of danger, physical injury, wantonness, or trespass under circumstances of insult or contumely, none of which applied here, and remanded for entry of a consistent judgment.

torts & liabilityproperty

This case involved an in rem action by Jeffrey White to quiet title to a parcel of real property in Birmingham that Southside Community Development Corporation had owned but lost to the State in 1997 for unpaid taxes. White acquired a tax deed from the State in February 2007 and filed suit in July 2007, before the statutory three-year period had run. The trial court ruled in White's favor, finding that the three-year redemption period under Alabama Code § 40-10-82 began when the State took title rather than when White received his deed. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statute's plain language and precedents such as Reese v. Robinson require the tax purchaser to hold exclusive adverse possession for three years after becoming entitled to demand a deed before a quiet-title action can proceed, and that this rule applies even when the purchaser acquires the property from the State.

propertytaxes

The case involved Eric Major suing the City of Birmingham under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after police arrested him for third-degree domestic violence based on statements and observations from his former fiancée following an alleged assault. Major was convicted in municipal court but acquitted by a jury on appeal in circuit court, after which he brought claims alleging the arrest lacked probable cause and violated his constitutional rights. The trial court denied the City's postjudgment motion and upheld a $500,000 jury verdict for Major, but the Alabama Supreme Court reversed and rendered judgment for the City. The court held that the officers had probable cause to arrest based on the victim's account, visible injuries, and other scene evidence, meaning no underlying Fourth Amendment violation occurred to support the §1983 claim.

civil rightscriminal law

The case concerned Jefferson County employees who had opted out of or sought to convert unpaid service in the county's employee retirement system, challenging a county resolution that required them to forfeit benefits under the Retiree Health Insurance Plan and Sick Leave Retirement Conversion Program in order to opt back in or convert service under Act 2003-343. The trial court entered summary judgment for the Jefferson County Commission and the retirement system, and the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that the claims were barred by res judicata based on the prior Black litigation, in which the Act's implementation was ordered but a motion to enjoin the resolution was denied, with the parties and issues substantially identical. The court also addressed procedural requirements for summary-judgment motions and notices of appeal but did not reach constitutional issues under § 43.

labor & employmentprocedure

In Ex Parte McCall, Willie Albert McCall filed a Rule 32 petition for postconviction relief alleging multiple instances of ineffective assistance by his trial and appellate counsel in his convictions for murder and attempted murder. After holding an evidentiary hearing on the petition, the trial court dismissed it without making specific findings of fact addressing the material issues raised. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the dismissal in an unpublished memorandum. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed that judgment, holding that it conflicted with Ex parte Grau and that Rule 32.9(d) requires the trial court to enter an order making specific findings of fact as to each material issue presented and clearly stating the basis for its ruling.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the owners of a catfish farm who sued their bank and its loan officers, along with a catfish processing company, after the business failed and left them with substantial debt. The plaintiffs alleged breach of fiduciary duty, suppression of material facts about conflicts of interest, deceit, unjust enrichment, conspiracy, negligence, and related claims stemming from the bank's financing of the farm and the officers' ties to the processor. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed summary judgments for the defendants on the fiduciary-duty, suppression, deceit, unjust-enrichment, conspiracy, and loss-of-consortium claims, holding that no fiduciary relationship existed and that the defendants had no duty to disclose their business interests. It reversed the denial of summary judgment on the negligence and negligent-supervision claims, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to show any actionable breach of duty. Derivative claims were dismissed because the underlying tort claims failed.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a lawsuit by the personal representative of a pretrial detainee who died in jail after allegedly receiving inadequate medical care for complications from prior surgery and resulting infections. The plaintiff asserted a federal claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the detainee's Fourteenth Amendment rights and a state-law breach-of-contract claim based on the sheriff's official bond. The trial court denied the sheriff's motion to dismiss on immunity grounds, prompting a petition for a writ of mandamus. The Alabama Supreme Court granted the petition in part and denied it in part, holding that the sheriff was entitled to state constitutional immunity under Article I, § 14 on the breach-of-contract claim because it sought damages for actions within the line and scope of his official duties, while addressing qualified immunity on the § 1983 claim under federal standards requiring a causal connection to a policy or custom of deliberate indifference.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

The case involved Rick Allen Belisle, who was convicted of capital murder during a robbery and burglary and sentenced to death for bludgeoning a convenience store cashier. After the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence, Belisle sought review, arguing that delayed disclosure of a plea agreement proffer with his wife violated due process under Giglio v. United States and related precedents, and that Alabama's lethal injection protocol constituted cruel and unusual punishment. The court held that the tardy disclosure did not require reversal because Belisle had other impeachment evidence available and was able to cross-examine the witness, and it found no conflict with prior case law. It also concluded that Alabama's execution method does not violate the Eighth Amendment. The decision affirmed the lower court's ruling on both issues.

criminal lawprocedure

The case was a tort action brought by a minor passenger injured in a rear-end car collision against the driver's mother for negligent and wanton entrustment of the vehicle and against the driver's estate for wanton operation. The trial court excluded some of the driver's medical records, permitted cross-examination about the plaintiff's recent car purchase without mentioning insurance proceeds, granted judgment as a matter of law on the wanton-entrustment claim, and denied a post-trial motion for new trial after the jury found for the defendants. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in the evidentiary rulings, that substantial evidence did not support submitting the wanton-entrustment claim to the jury, and that the plaintiff failed to show reversible error.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved parents J.K. and P.K. suing a private preparatory school, its administrators, and board trustees after the school dismissed their two minor children, alleging negligence, breach of contract, due-process violations, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent supervision of staff. The dispute arose from an incident where the parents' adult son assaulted a student on campus, leading the school to conclude that the siblings' continued enrollment posed a safety risk. The trial court dismissed all claims against the non-compensated board trustees based on statutory immunity and enforced a purported settlement agreement dismissing the remaining claims with prejudice. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of claims against the trustees but reversed the enforcement of the settlement, holding that a hearing was required to determine whether the parents' attorney had actual authority to bind them to the agreement under Alabama law. The court remanded for further proceedings on the settlement issue.

civil rightstorts & liabilityprocedure

The case concerned two hospitals' claims that a $700,000 settlement in a wrongful-death and personal-injury lawsuit arising from a fatal car accident impaired their statutory liens for unpaid medical bills totaling over $439,000. The hospitals had treated the decedent and filed liens under Alabama Code § 35-11-370 et seq., but the defendants and estate reached a mediated settlement that purported to allocate all funds solely to the wrongful-death claim while holding the defendants harmless from the liens. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Gann parties on the impairment claims based on the settlement's stated intent, while denying summary judgment on perfection and res judicata issues. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, reasoning that the liens attached to the settlement proceeds and that the hospitals had substantially complied with statutory filing requirements.

torts & liabilityprocedurehealthcare

The case involved a wrongful death lawsuit by Sharon Larrimore, as administratrix of her husband's estate, against Springhill Hospitals (SMH) alleging that its pharmacist, H. Gregory Weeks, was negligent in advising a physician on the proper oral dosage of colchicine for treating gout in a patient with renal insufficiency, leading to the patient's overdose and death. A jury awarded the estate $4 million in punitive damages. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered a judgment as a matter of law in favor of SMH. The court held that the learned-intermediary doctrine applied, foreclosing any duty by the pharmacist to warn the patient directly and limiting the pharmacist's duty to the prescribing physician, who remained responsible for patient-specific information and final dosing decisions.

torts & liabilityhealthcare

This case involved a medical malpractice claim under Alabama's Medical Liability Acts, in which plaintiff Randal Harris alleged that Huntsville Hospital and Dr. Norman Solliday breached the standard of care by failing to properly monitor him while he was restrained during treatment for delirium tremens, resulting in a severe nerve injury to his right arm. The trial court granted summary judgment to both defendants after striking the plaintiff's late-filed expert affidavits and noting his failure to disclose any expert witnesses by the court-ordered deadline or respond to discovery requests. On appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the judgments, holding that the plaintiff had not complied with the scheduling order or discovery rules and had not sought to amend the order or properly invoke Rule 56(f) to obtain a continuance. The core reasoning centered on the plaintiff's procedural defaults in presenting evidence to oppose summary judgment.

healthcareproceduretorts & liability