Patricia M. Smith

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.

proceduretorts & liability

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

procedurefamily lawtorts & liability

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.

proceduretorts & liability

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.

family lawprocedurebusiness & regulatory

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.

criminal lawprocedure

William C. Coleman pleaded guilty to first-degree rape, first-degree sodomy, and two counts of first-degree sexual abuse and was sentenced to concurrent prison terms. He later filed a Rule 32 petition alleging that his counsel provided inaccurate information about parole eligibility and work-release programs, rendering his guilty pleas involuntary. The circuit court summarily dismissed the petition, and the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed, holding that Coleman's specific allegations, supported by his own affidavit, required an evidentiary hearing rather than summary dismissal at the pleading stage.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned a dispute over title to two parcels of real property in Baldwin County, Alabama, where Christine Williams and family members sued to quiet title claiming ownership by adverse possession exceeding eighty years, while the Historic Blakeley Foundation counterclaimed seeking to quiet title based on deeds acquired between 1942 and 1990. The Baldwin Circuit Court, after an ore tenus hearing, entered judgment quieting title to both parcels in Williams's favor and taxing guardian ad litem fees against the Foundation. On appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in part and reversed it in part, remanding with directions. The court's review applied the ore tenus presumption of correctness to the trial court's factual findings on adverse possession and deed-based ownership claims unless those findings were palpably erroneous or manifestly unjust.

propertyprocedure

In Spinks v. Automation Personnel Services, Inc., Torie Spinks appealed an order granting a preliminary injunction that barred her from working for a competitor in alleged violation of noncompetition and nonsolicitation clauses in her employment agreement with APS, after she resigned and joined PeopleLink; APS had also sued for breach of contract and tortious interference. The trial court granted the injunction against Spinks but simultaneously compelled arbitration of the claims and stayed proceedings. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the preliminary injunction was invalid as a matter of law because the trial court failed to require APS to post a bond under Alabama Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), which mandates security in such cases absent specific exceptions not met here.

labor & employmentprocedure

Plaintiffs owning property near New Acton Coal Mining Company's operations sued the company for damages to their properties allegedly caused by its blasting activities. After separate jury trials, verdicts were returned in favor of some plaintiffs, who then moved for a new trial on grounds including juror misconduct and inadequate damages; the trial court granted the motion. New Acton appealed the order granting a new trial, citing authority allowing appeals from such orders. The Alabama Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that no final judgment had been entered because the claims of remaining plaintiffs were still pending and the trial court's bifurcation under Rule 42(b) did not constitute a severance creating separate actions.

propertytorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves a class-action lawsuit filed by Partridge, Smith, P.C. against Loube Consulting International, Inc., its president, and office manager, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) for sending unsolicited facsimile advertisements. The plaintiff served broad discovery requests seeking details on all fax advertisements sent by the defendants over several years, including recipient lists, business relationships, and advertising processes. The defendants moved for a protective order, which the trial court denied, prompting a petition for a writ of mandamus. The Alabama Supreme Court granted the petition, directing the trial court to issue the protective order. The court reasoned that the discovery requests were overly broad and sought information not relevant to the claims or proportional to the needs of the case under Alabama Rule of Civil Procedure 26.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved consolidated appeals concerning the administration of the estates of Ann Russell Girdner and her son Mark Russell Archer, whose minor daughter April Ann Archer was the sole heir. After litigation over alleged mismanagement of the Girdner estate led to a settlement increasing the combined value of both estates by over $544,000, the trial court approved contingent attorney fees for the work but ordered them paid only after certain debts including a hospital claim and a mortgage on April's residence; it also declared that assets held in the attorneys' trust account belonged to April. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the declaration that the trust account assets were April's property because no supporting authority was cited on appeal. It reversed the fee prioritization order, holding that the attorney fees should be paid before the hospital claim and mortgage under applicable estate priority rules, and remanded for entry of a corrected order.

propertyfamily lawprocedure

The case involved breach-of-contract claims by landowners against the Industrial Development Board of the City of Montgomery arising from option agreements to purchase property for an industrial project; the plaintiffs alleged the IDB failed to honor a most-favored-nation price clause. During discovery the plaintiffs sought to depose one of the IDB’s attorneys who had participated in the negotiations. The trial court denied the IDB’s motion for a protective order, but the Alabama Supreme Court granted a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to issue the protective order. The Court reasoned that depositions of opposing counsel are disfavored and, absent a showing that the information sought is non-privileged, unavailable from other sources, and crucial to the case, such discovery is not permitted.

procedure

This case involves Wachovia Bank (successor to SouthTrust Bank) and its insurer suing two law firms, Jones Morrison and Stokes Clinton, for alleged legal malpractice in collecting a credit-card debt owed by LaCoste Construction Company. The firms were retained to pursue the debt based on a guaranty agreement, but problems arose with preparing a sworn statement of account naming an individual employee as debtor and with attempting service of process on that employee, resulting in a default judgment that was later vacated and a substantial settlement paid by the bank. The trial court entered judgment as a matter of law for the lawyers on the malpractice claims. On appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the judgment as to the sworn-statement claim due to lack of expert testimony but reversed as to the service-of-process claim, finding sufficient evidence that the lawyers may have breached the standard of care, and remanded for further proceedings.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case concerned Beryl R. Hiler's conviction under Alabama Code § 13A-11-11 for falsely reporting an incident after he called 911 about a domestic dispute and then presented what appeared to be a bomb (actually a pipe) during a police response at a residence, causing alarm and evacuation. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction, relying on the statute's commentary indicating it did not apply to false reports made to officers already engaged in police activities. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed that decision, holding that the plain language of the statute itself prohibits such false reports under circumstances likely to cause public inconvenience or alarm without any exception for reports to law enforcement, and that the commentary cannot override the statutory text. The court remanded the case for the lower court to address other arguments.

criminal law

The case was a wrongful-death action brought by the personal representative of a child's estate against four Department of Human Resources employees, alleging that the defendants' failure to obtain court-ordered drug-test results, conduct proper home visits, or adequately assess risks from the mother's boyfriend allowed the child to be returned to an unsafe home where he was fatally abused. The defendants petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to enter summary judgment in their favor on State-agent immunity grounds. The court denied the petition as to investigators Watson and Jackson, finding disputed facts about whether they followed agency policies or acted beyond their authority in the child-abuse investigation and ongoing supervision, but granted the petition as to supervisors Dollar and Eubanks due to their more limited roles. The core reasoning focused on the Cranman framework for State-agent immunity, distinguishing between acts that complied with or were authorized by agency rules versus those that did not.

torts & liabilityfamily lawprocedure

In Miller v. Riley, plaintiffs including Andrew Miller challenged the application of Alabama's Community Notification Act residency restrictions to Miller, who was convicted in 1987 of sex offenses after his juvenile case was transferred to adult court, served his sentence, and was later repeatedly involuntarily committed for mental illness; the suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleged improper classification as an adult sex offender and violations of constitutional rights including familial association, while seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to bar enforcement of the restrictions. The trial court denied the injunctive relief, and the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed that denial in part while dismissing the appeal in part. The court reasoned that Miller had not shown the injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable injury, given evidence of his mental health needs, potential risk of harm to himself or others if unsupervised, and the lack of proof that family members could adequately mitigate those risks under the statutory framework.

criminal lawcivil rightsfamily lawprocedure

The case involved challenges by Nicholas Madaloni and his publishing company, located in downtown Mobile, to Act No. 2004-382 and the resulting City of Mobile Ordinance creating a self-help business improvement district (BID) that imposes special assessments on property owners for supplemental services. The plaintiffs argued that the Act and Ordinance violated several provisions of the Alabama Constitution and conflicted with various state statutes regarding public works and improvements. The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the City, the management corporation, and the State, holding that the legislative enactments were constitutional and did not conflict with the cited laws, based on a de novo review presuming constitutionality and finding no clear violations.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case involves appeals from a trial court's order remitting a $1.25 million damages verdict in favor of Werner Beiersdoerfer against the HRH corporations down to $900,000, along with a setoff for commissions, following prior litigation over a contract and related claims for mental anguish. The trial court had ordered the remittitur without providing Beiersdoerfer the option to elect a new trial instead. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed the order and remanded, ruling that under Rule 59(f) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff must be given the choice of accepting the remittitur or proceeding to a new trial, as established in prior precedents like B&M Homes v. Hogan and McCormick v. Alabama Power Co. Both parties had agreed that the lack of this option required reversal.

procedure

The case concerned Alabama public employees affiliated with workforce training consortia who sued the State Board of Education, community colleges, and officials after their annual contracts expired without renewal in 2005; they sought relief including reinstatement and back pay under the Fair Dismissal Act, which requires notice and hearings before termination. The employees obtained a preliminary injunction from the Montgomery Circuit Court, prompting an appeal by the defendants. The Supreme Court reversed the injunction in part, dismissed the appeal in part, and remanded, holding that the employees served at the pleasure of the chancellor as at-will staff under the Department of Postsecondary Education and thus were not covered by the Act's procedural protections.

labor & employmentprocedure