The Appellate Corner, 0514 ALBJ, 75 The Alabama Lawyer 190 (2014)

AuthorWilson F. Green, Marc A. Starrett, J.

THE APPELLATE CORNER

Vol. 75 No. 3 Pg. 190

Alabama Bar Lawyer

May, 2014

\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0 Wilson F. Green, Marc A. Starrett, J.

\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0By Wilson F. Green

\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Wilson F. Green is a partner in Fleenor & Green LLP in Tuscaloosa. He is a summa cum laude graduate of the University of Alabama School of Law and a former law clerk to the Hon. Robert B. Propst, United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. From 2000-09, Green served as adjunct professor at the law school, where he taught courses in class actions and complex litigation. He represents consumers and businesses in consumer and commercial litigation.

\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0By Marc A. Starrett

\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Marc A. Starrett is an assistant attorney general for the State of Alabama and represents the state in criminal appeals and habeas corpus in all state and federal courts. He is a graduate of the University of Alabama School of Law. Starrett served as staff attorney to justice Kenneth Ingram and justice Mark Kennedy on the Alabama Supreme Court, and was engaged in civil and criminal practice in Montgomery before appointment to the Office of the Attorney General. Among other cases for the office, Starrett successfully prosecuted Bobby Frank Cherry on appeal from his murder convictions for the 1963 bombing of Birmingham's Sixteenth Street Baptist Church.

\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0RECENT CIVIL DECISIONS

\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0From the Alabama Supreme Court

\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Discovery

\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Ex parte Michelin North America, Inc., No. 1120330 (Ala. Jan. 24, 2014]

\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0In a complex mandamus involving discovery in a tire separation products case, the supreme court disallowed a plaintiff's effort to conduct a videotaped plant inspection at the plant where the tire was manufactured, even though the tape would admittedly assist the plaintiff in presenting her case, because of its exposure of defendant's trade secrets. As to discovery directed to other tire sizes and manufacture locations and time periods, the trial court did not exceed its discretion in ordering discovery of those items. The trial court had discretion to disregard excess burden argument made for the first time on a motion for protective order, filed after the original motion to compel the discovery had been granted.

\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Intentional Interference with Business Relations; Refusals to Deal

\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Alabama Psychiatric Services, P.C. v. A Center for Eating Disorders, LLC, No. 1110703 (Ala. Jan. 24, 2014]

\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Mere refusal to deal is not evidence of an intentional interference with a business relationship, because Alabama courts cannot force a company to do business with another company.

\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Zoning

\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0The City of Alabaster et al. v. Shelby Land Partners, LLC S Alabaster Land Co., No. 1120677 (Ala. Jan. 24, 2014]

\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0In zoning challenge, burden is on the landowner to demonstrate that the existing zoning bears no substantial relationship to the city's interests in promoting health, safety, wellness and morals, and that landowners failed to make that showing. The case contains a succinct concurrence by Justice Murdock (joined by Justice Shaw] clarifying the law in this area.

\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Expansion of Mandamus Review

\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Ex parte U.S. Bank, No. 1120304 (Ala. Feb. 7, 2014) Ex parte Hodge, No. 1121194 (Ala. Feb. 7, 2014]

\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0These cases mark the most comprehensive restatement of the law to date concerning the availability of civil mandamus to challenge interlocutory trial court orders. U.S. Bank involved an outcome-determinative, threshold choice-of-law issue. Hodge involved the four-year period of repose in medical malpractice, under Ala. Code § 6-5-482(a), where the claim may not have accrued or been discoverable [because the plaintiff had not experienced any deleterious effects from the alleged wrongful act). U.S. Bank, authored by Justice Bolin, helpfully synthesizes the extant grounds for seeking civil mandamus relief, finding over 20 issues for which the court will conduct mandamus review. Both cases discussed the "lack of adequate remedy by appeal" element required to demonstrate entitlement to mandamus relief. In both cases, the court concluded that the additional expense of litigation in the trial court, which would be incurred absent immediate appellate review, justified the court's consideration of the issues by mandamus. This latter holding is the most significant and groundbreaking aspect of these cases-until these cases, a litigant's exposure to additional litigation cost did not demonstrate that the litigant lacked adequate relief by appeal. One other interesting note: In Hodge, the majority noted that immediate appellate review by mandamus would be needed in situations where a Rule 5 certification of an issue would be unavailable, because Rule 5 requires an unsettled question of law, whereas the petitioner in mandamus must demonstrate a "clear legal right to relief'-thus necessitating a settled question of law.

\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Wills

\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Ex parte Ricks, No. 1120260 (Ala. Feb. 7, 2014]

\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0In a plurality opinion, the court held that once the proponent introduces the probate proceedings in a will contest in the circuit court, including the judgment admitting the will to probate, the validity of the will is prima facie sustained, and it is then the duty of the contestant to produce evidence countermanding the will's validity.

\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Rule 59(E) Motions; Discretion of Trial Court to Consider New Legal Argument

\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Alfa Mut. Ins. Co. v. Culver house, No. 1121127 (Ala. Feb. 14, 2014]

...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT