The case involved a petition for a writ of mandamus by Cristian Dragomir, a Michigan resident, seeking to dismiss claims against him in an Alabama circuit court arising from a tractor-trailer accident that occurred in Iowa. The Alabama Supreme Court granted the petition, directing the trial court to vacate its order denying the motion to dismiss and to dismiss the claims for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court reasoned that Dragomir's contacts with Alabama were isolated and sporadic rather than continuous and systematic, and thus insufficient under due process principles to confer general personal jurisdiction over him for claims unrelated to those contacts.
The case involved a breach-of-contract dispute in which Beiersdoerfer prevailed on his claims against the HRH corporations and was awarded $900,000 in compensatory damages after a remittitur. The trial court also granted HRH a set-off against that award equal to 60 percent of approximately $63,000 in commissions that Beiersdoerfer had placed in an investment account. On appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court reversed the set-off portion of the judgment. The court reasoned that HRH's claim to the commissions arose out of the same transaction as Beiersdoerfer's claims, making it a compulsory counterclaim that HRH had waived by failing to assert it earlier under Rule 13(a), Ala. R. Civ. P.
This case involves the administration of the estate of Christopher A. Kiker, where the administratrix settled a wrongful-death claim for $150,000 without prior court approval and sought approval of attorney fees and expenses based on a 50% contingency agreement. The probate court awarded reduced fees, and after a prior remand for explanation of the fee calculation, it modified the amounts awarded to the attorneys instead of merely providing reasoning. The Alabama Supreme Court held that the probate court exceeded its limited jurisdiction on remand by altering the fee awards and therefore remanded the case again with directions to vacate the modified order and explain the original fee decision.
The case involved homeowners Jennifer Pera Jenkins and John H. Jenkins suing Atelier Homes, Inc., Frank Wallace, and other subcontractors for alleged construction defects in their residence, asserting claims including suppression, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligence, breach of implied warranties, and violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Atelier Homes and Wallace moved to compel arbitration, relying on an affidavit and an unexecuted copy of a construction contract that referenced an arbitration clause, though the executed contract was reportedly lost. The trial court granted the motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, but the Alabama Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding that the moving parties had not sufficiently demonstrated the existence of a valid arbitration agreement binding the Jenkinses to them, as the evidence identified a different corporate entity as the contractor.
The consolidated cases concern petitions for a writ of mandamus arising from a divorce action filed by Forney McMichael against Ronda McMichael in Calhoun Circuit Court, which was later transferred to Talladega Circuit Court, and a separate declaratory-judgment action Forney filed in Calhoun concerning management of their jointly owned LLC. The Alabama Supreme Court granted Ronda's petition in case no. 1090150 and issued the writ, while transferring Forney's petition in case no. 1090179 to the Court of Civil Appeals. The court reasoned that the Talladega Circuit Court properly exercised jurisdiction over the divorce and related LLC matters after the transfer, and that the Calhoun declaratory action improperly sought to circumvent that jurisdiction.
The case involved Jamie Ray Mills, who was convicted of three counts of capital murder for the 2004 killings of Floyd and Vera Hill during a robbery and was sentenced to death. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences, and the Alabama Supreme Court granted certiorari review before also affirming the lower court's judgment. The court reviewed the trial evidence, including forensic testing and crime scene details, as well as challenges to the admissibility of certain evidence and the jury instructions regarding aggravating and mitigating circumstances in the penalty phase. It concluded that any errors in the proceedings did not require reversal under applicable standards.