The Appellate Corner, 0914 ALBJ, 75 The Alabama Lawyer 326 (2014)
| Author | Wilson F. Green, Marc A. Starrett, J. |
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0
\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\xA0Municipalities
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Ex parte Labbe, No. 1030110 (Ala. June 6, 2014)
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Volunteer Service Act, Ala. Code § 6-5-336, barred claims against municipality and mayor for alleged negligence and wantonness of volunteer firefighters
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Evidence
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Guyoungtech USA, Inc. v. Dees, No. 1120505 (Ala. June 6, 2014)
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0In workers' comp retaliatory discharge case, mortality tables were improperly admitted into evidence for purposes of establishing permanency of mental anguish, because the mental anguish testimony was too subjective and unsupported by expert medical evidence to establish permanence of injury
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Personal Jurisdiction
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Ex parte AutoSource Motors, LLC, No. 1130255 (Ala. June 13, 2014)
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Utah car dealer who advertised car for sale on generally-accessible website was not subject to specific jurisdiction in Alabama; even assuming that the dealer made statement that buyer could "title the automobile in Alabama" actually constituted a "contact" with the State of Alabama, that sole, isolated contact was insufficient to support a finding of specific personal jurisdiction
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Post-Arbitral Relief
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Tucker v. Ernst £ Young LLP, No. 1121048 (Ala. June 13, 2014)
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Arbitrators did not exceed their powers under FAA section 10 in their decision making, and, in fact, challenger's arguments were repackaged contentions that panel "manifestly disregarded" Alabama law, a now-discarded standard
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0State Agent Immunity
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Ex parte City of Midfield, No. 1121211 (Ala. June 13, 2014)
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Peace officer-immunity barred claims for negligence and negligence per se against municipality and officers arising from injuries sustained in high-speed chase. On the current record, however, municipality and decision-makers were not immune from negligent training and supervision claims.
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Probate Court Jurisdiction
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Ex parte O.S., No. 1121134 (Ala. June 20, 2014)
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0The court of civil appeals erred in concluding that circuit courts could exercise general equity powers, under Ala. Code § 12-11-31, over action collaterally attacking the probate court's judgment of adoption.
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Statute of Limitations
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Ex parte IRMCO, No. 1130110 (Ala. June 20, 2014)
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0This case involves a complex and unusual interpolation between the two-year, then six-year, then back-to-two-year statute of limitations for wantonness, and is the third appeal in the litigation made the basis of a published opinion (this is a 12-year old mass tort case). The supreme court held: (1) the statute-of-limitations question presented by the current petition was not of the species subject to mandamus review; (2) circuit court did not violate the mandate from IRMCO I and II by denying summary judgment on wantonness, because although a two-year statute of limitations on wantonness claims may have been in place at the time the former employees' claims arose, the six-year statute of limitations adopted in McKenzie v. Killian, SS7 So. 2d S61 (Ala. 2004), was in place at the time the former employees asserted those claims against the new defendants in the first amended complaint (the first amended complaint did not relate back); but (3) trial court erred by allowing conspiracy claims to go forward because those were dismissed before a prior appeal on statute of limitations grounds, and no appeal had been taken from that dismissal.
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Attorneys
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Hall v. Environmental Litigation Croup, Inc., No. 1130301 (Ala. June 20, 2014)
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Client's claim against firm, contending that attorney's charging administrative fees as expenses violated terms of f ee contract, was not subject to bar's exclusive jurisdiction and was therefore improperly dismissed
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Res Judicata
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Ex parte Webber, No. 1121443 (Ala. June 27, 2014)
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Claims of plaintiff brought in second circuit court action were barred by res judicata due to prior case in small claims court, even though the current claims in circuit court were beyond the small claims court's jurisdiction, and wife shared "privity" with husband so that identity of parties was established, even though wife was not a party to the first case
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Necessary and Indispensable Parties
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Campbell v. Taylor, No. 1110057 (Ala. July 3, 2014)
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Purported failure to join necessary or indispensable parties does not create a "jurisdictional" defect which might render a judgment void
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0From the Court of Civil Appeals
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Premises Liability
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Burlington Coat Factory of Alabama LLC v. Butler, No. 2120969 (Ala. Civ. App. June 13, 2014)
...
To continue reading
Request your trial