Janie L. Shores

The case concerned whether Alabama circuit judge Inge Johnson, who had met the statutory service requirements for judicial retirement benefits under Ala. Code § 12-18-6(b)(5), remained eligible for those benefits after she resigned her state position and began serving as a United States district judge. The Board of Control of the Employees' Retirement System initially processed her retirement but later suspended payments, relying on Alabama Constitution § 280's prohibition on holding two offices simultaneously and on precedents such as Hogan v. Bronner interpreting a retired judge's status as an "office." The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the denial, holding that the constitutional bar applied because Johnson continued to hold the office of retired state judge while occupying a federal judgeship, and that prior legal fictions developed under § 60 did not extend to override § 280's restriction on dual office-holding.

labor & employmentfederal powerprocedure

This case involves a dispute over life insurance proceeds after Tullie Culverhouse was murdered by his son Hunter, a beneficiary under the policy issued by Alfa Life Insurance. Alfa paid the proceeds to Hunter pursuant to the policy terms, but after Hunter confessed, Robin, another son and heir, sued Alfa claiming the proceeds under Alabama's slayer statute. The trial court denied Alfa's summary judgment motion, ruling that oral notice to a local agent created actual notice that substantially complied with statutory requirements. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed and rendered judgment for Alfa, holding that the plain language of § 43-8-253(f) requires written notice of an adverse claim delivered to the insurer's home office or principal address before payment, and that oral notice to an agent does not satisfy this prerequisite.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatory

The case involved Alabama owners of Ford Bronco II vehicles who brought a putative class action claiming that Ford fraudulently suppressed information about a design defect causing rollover propensity, inducing them to purchase vehicles worth less than represented. The plaintiffs sought damages for the alleged defect without any actual rollover or tangible economic loss occurring. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed the trial court's denial of summary judgment to Ford, holding that no legally cognizable injury existed to support the fraudulent suppression claims because the defect had not manifested in observable adverse consequences. The court reasoned that fraud requires actual damage, following its prior decision in Pfizer, Inc. v. Farsian.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case arose from a breach-of-contract action filed in Alabama circuit court by an Alabama sign manufacturer against a Virginia construction company over unpaid work performed for a project in Virginia under an oral contract. The Virginia defendant moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, supported by an affidavit showing it was not qualified to do business in Alabama and had no other ties there, but the trial court denied the motion. The Alabama Supreme Court reviewed a petition for a writ of mandamus and determined that the Virginia company had sufficient minimum contacts with Alabama because it initiated the business relationship by contacting and soliciting the Alabama company to manufacture the signage. The court concluded that these contacts satisfied due process requirements under Rule 4.2, Ala.R.Civ.P., and applicable precedent, allowing the Alabama court to exercise jurisdiction.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

Mickey Allen sued Dunlop Tire Corporation for retaliatory discharge under Ala. Code § 25-5-11.1, claiming he was fired solely for filing a workers' compensation claim. A jury awarded him compensatory and punitive damages, and Dunlop appealed the denial of its motions for JNOV, new trial, and remittitur, arguing that three jurors failed to disclose prior litigation during voir dire and that Allen presented insufficient evidence. The Supreme Court of Alabama held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding no probable prejudice from the jurors' nondisclosure, which stemmed from confusion rather than willfulness. It further reviewed the claim under the Twilley prima facie test for retaliatory discharge, requiring substantial evidence that the termination was pretextual after the employer offered a legitimate reason.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case concerned whether a court-approved workers' compensation settlement agreement between Wal-Mart and its employee Joseph Hines, containing broad release language covering all claims for injuries or damages from employment, barred Hines's separate pending action alleging retaliatory discharge. The trial court granted Hines's Rule 60(b)(6) motion to set aside the settlement judgment to allow the retaliatory-discharge claim to proceed, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed that decision. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed, holding that the settlement judgment should not be vacated. The court's reasoning centered on the explicit terms of the release, which encompassed the retaliatory-discharge claim, the absence of grounds under Rule 60(b)(6) for relief based on Hines's misunderstanding of those terms, and the fact that the trial court was unaware of the pending action at the time it approved the settlement.

labor & employmentprocedure

In Ex Parte Woodall, the defendant was convicted by a jury of capital murder for hire under Alabama Code § 13A-5-40(a)(7) and attempted murder, based on evidence that he hired an accomplice to kill his brother amid a family property dispute, resulting in the death of their mother and injury to the brother. The trial court imposed a death sentence on the capital count following the jury's recommendation and a life sentence on the attempted murder count; the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the attempted murder conviction and life sentence but reversed the capital conviction and death sentence, remanding the case, because the evidence was insufficient to corroborate the accomplice's testimony on the murder-for-hire element and because the prosecution improperly cross-examined the defendant about uncharged misconduct. The opinion addresses the need for independent evidence to support accomplice statements in capital cases and limits on impeachment of character evidence.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a dispute over postjudgment interest on a judgment for compensatory and punitive damages in an insurance action brought by Daisey L. Johnson against Life Insurance Company of Georgia. After a 1994 jury verdict, multiple appeals, and remittiturs reducing the punitive award ultimately to $3 million, the parties disagreed on when interest began to accrue and how prior payments should be credited. The Alabama Supreme Court held that postjudgment interest under Alabama law accrues from the date of the original judgment, with payments applied first to accrued interest and then to principal. The court also addressed the effect of a payment tendered specifically for the compensatory damages portion, finding it satisfied that part of the judgment.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved Nathaniel Scroggins's conviction for capital murder in the shooting death of Richard Fields during a robbery of the victim's car. The trial court admitted the preliminary hearing testimony of the sole eyewitness after finding him unavailable under Alabama evidence rules, and the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed, holding that the State failed to demonstrate it had used reasonable means to procure the witness's attendance at trial, as required by Rule 804 and the Confrontation Clause.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

This case involved a class action lawsuit filed by Alabama purchasers of satellite television systems against the seller and First Tennessee Bank, which financed the purchases, alleging joint fraudulent misconduct under state law. After settlement negotiations, the trial court certified the class, approved the settlement following a fairness hearing, and entered a final judgment in October 1997 with no appeal taken. The bank later argued that the judgment was voided by the Supreme Court's subsequent December 1997 decision in FNB of Jasper III, which overruled prior precedent on the first-to-certify rule for class actions to address races to certification. The court held that FNB of Jasper III does not retroactively void final judgments entered before its announcement and affirmed enforcement of the settlement. It further reasoned that Alabama's abatement statute (§ 6-5-440) provides a defense rather than automatically depriving jurisdiction and was not properly raised to challenge the action.

procedure

In Brooks v. Hill, the plaintiff, as executrix and widow of a 19% minority shareholder in a closely held corporation, sued the majority shareholder (her brother) and the company over a 1993 stock purchase agreement, alleging fraud in misrepresenting the shares' value, breach of fiduciary duty through waste of corporate assets for personal use, a scheme to devalue the stock, and conspiracy. The trial court dismissed the claims, ruling that the original fraud count abated upon the decedent's death and that the plaintiff lacked standing to pursue the remaining counts as direct actions. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed, holding that corporate waste claims are derivative and belong to the corporation rather than individual shareholders, that Alabama law does not recognize a direct tort claim for minority shareholder oppression or squeeze-out in this context, and that the facts did not support a personal claim arising from the stock sale between the two shareholders.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involved Ronald Joe Hood, a truck driver terminated by Golden Poultry after settling a workers' compensation claim for a knee injury, who sued in state court alleging retaliatory discharge under Alabama Code § 25-5-11.1. Golden moved to stay proceedings and compel arbitration based on an agreement Hood signed at the start of employment, after first removing the case to federal court, participating in a Rule 26(f) discovery conference, and agreeing to a trial schedule. The trial court granted the stay, finding the agreement enforceable and no waiver by Golden, but the Alabama Supreme Court granted Hood's petition for a writ of mandamus. The Court held that Golden had waived its right to arbitration by substantially invoking the litigation process in a manner that prejudiced Hood, including the removal and discovery planning before belatedly seeking arbitration months later. Core reasoning focused on established Alabama precedent requiring both substantial invocation of litigation and resulting prejudice to establish waiver of arbitration rights.

labor & employmentprocedure

Ex Parte Boyd involved Anthony Boyd's conviction for capital murder during a kidnapping under Alabama law, where a jury recommended and the trial court imposed the death penalty, later affirmed by the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Alabama Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed the conviction and sentence, addressing three main issues: the admission of autopsy photographs, the adequacy of the jury instruction on kidnapping, and an error in the trial court's finding on Boyd's age at the time of the offense. The court held that the photographs were properly admitted because they corroborated witness testimony on guilt-phase issues despite the prosecution's focus on an aggravating circumstance, that any deficiency in the kidnapping instruction did not rise to plain error, and that the age miscalculation was not plain error given that Boyd was clearly an adult. The court also reviewed the record under statutory requirements and found the death sentence appropriate and proportional.

criminal lawprocedure

This case was a medical malpractice and wrongful death action brought by the administrator of Eva Davis's estate against dentist Dr. Thomas Looney after she died from uncontrolled bleeding following a tooth extraction. The Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff and remanded the case. The court held that the evidence did not support liability because Dr. Looney had inquired about the patient's medical history, received assurances she was not at risk for bleeding, and was not obligated to independently investigate or diagnose conditions like cirrhosis or anemia that the patient had not disclosed. The opinion also addressed related procedural issues arising during trial, including challenges to peremptory jury strikes.

torts & liabilityhealthcareprocedure

The case involved thirteen residents and one estate suing the City of Prichard and its Water Works and Sewer Board for negligence, wantonness, and trespass after raw sewage overflowed into their homes and yards following heavy rains due to defects in the sewer system. The trial court granted summary judgment to the City; a jury found the Board liable and awarded damages for mental anguish, property damage, and punitive damages, which the trial judge then reduced in part. On appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the summary judgment for the City and the denial of an injunction, upheld the mental anguish damages, reversed the reduction to reinstate the full jury property-damage award, and reversed the punitive-damages award entirely. The court reasoned that substantial evidence supported the Board's negligent maintenance of the sewer system as the proximate cause of the harm, that plaintiffs failed to show the City's control or causation of the drainage issues, and that state law immunizes the Board from punitive damages as a governmental entity.

torts & liabilitypropertyprocedure

This case involved Alfa Mutual General Insurance Company seeking a declaratory judgment to rescind a homeowner's insurance policy issued to Jerry Oglesby and denying his claim after his house was destroyed by fire, based on Oglesby's alleged material misrepresentation in the application about prior arrests. Oglesby counterclaimed for breach of contract, and the trial court directed a verdict against Alfa on its misrepresentation defense under Ala. Code § 27-14-7 before the jury awarded Oglesby $82,500. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the trial court properly directed the verdict and that Alfa had not shown reversible error in the evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, or other issues raised on appeal. The core reasoning centered on the lack of substantial evidence to support Alfa's misrepresentation claims under the statute and policy terms, as interpreted in light of precedent like State Farm Gen. Ins. Co. v. Oliver.

business & regulatory

This case involves a dispute over the calculation of post-judgment interest following a wrongful death medical malpractice trial. A jury returned a $4.5 million verdict in 1993 that the trial court initially reduced under a statutory cap before later reinstating a $2.5 million judgment after the cap was ruled unconstitutional. The parties disagreed on the accrual start date for 12% interest, the effect of partial payments and court deposits, and whether interest continued on the full amount until full payment. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed the trial court's interest order and remanded for recalculation consistent with the proper judgment dates and credits for amounts deposited or paid.

torts & liabilityprocedurehealthcare

This case involved a minority shareholder in a family-owned Alabama corporation suing the bank executor of majority estates and several directors (AmSouth employees) over alleged oppression and self-dealing, specifically claims that the defendants failed to exercise the company's option to repurchase shares from deceased shareholders' estates and conspired to retain a timber management contract benefiting the bank. The plaintiff sought both individual and derivative relief for breaches of fiduciary duties. The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed summary judgment for the defendants. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff failed to satisfy the demand requirement of Rule 23.1 for derivative claims and that allegations of oppression were unsupported, as legitimate expectations alone do not establish majority misconduct in a close corporation.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Ex Parte Pointer, Kenneth Pointer sued Regal Nissan Company and Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation for misrepresentation, fraud, breach of contract, deceit, and conversion arising from a 1995 automobile purchase and trade-in agreement in which Regal Nissan later reduced the promised trade-in value. The defendants sought to compel arbitration under a clause in the sales contract, but Pointer petitioned for a writ of mandamus to vacate the trial court's order compelling arbitration. The Alabama Supreme Court granted the petition, holding that the arbitration clause was not enforceable because it was left unsigned in a contract section specifically set aside for it, demonstrating a lack of mutual assent under precedent from Crown Pontiac, Inc. v. McCarrell. The Court reasoned that the contract's boxed format with separate signature lines for distinct terms confirmed that the unsigned arbitration provision did not become part of the parties' agreement.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Tony Alan Walls, who was convicted of first-degree receiving stolen property after purchasing 11 radios (three stolen from a car dealership and eight never stolen) from a thief in a police-orchestrated controlled sale. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed the conviction and entered judgment for Walls, holding that the evidence was insufficient to prove the completed offense. The court's reasoning was that the crime requires the property to be stolen at the time it is received, but the three recovered radios had lost their stolen character once police took physical possession, and the eight others had never been stolen; because the jury was not instructed on the lesser-included attempt offense, retrial was not permitted.

criminal law