State Immunity - State Agent Immunity

Jan 27, 2012

In Ex parte Montgomery County Board of Education, et. al., [Ms. 1101401, Jan. 27, 2012] __ So. 3d __(Ala. 2012), the Supreme Court of Alabama granted a petition by the defendants, Montgomery County School Board, its board members, and an employee, requesting that the Supreme Court vacate the Montgomery Circuit Court’s Order denying the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the basis of immunity. This case arose out of a third grade student who was injured in a school restroom.

Read More

Venue

Jan 13, 2012

In Ex parte Wright Brothers Construction Co., Inc. and GIBCO Construction, LLC, [Ms. 1100937, Jan. 13. 2012] __ So. 3d __(Ala. 2012), the Alabama Supreme Court held that there is no authority in Alabama “rendering venue proper in any county in which any affiliate of a named corporate defendant does business when that affiliate is not made a defendant to the action and is not alleged to have contributed in any manner to the events giving rise to the action.”

Read More

Workers’ Compensation - Venue

Jan 13, 2012

In Ex parte Billy Barnes Enterprises, [Ms. 2101158, Jan. 13. 2012] __ So. 3d __(Ala. Civ. App. 2012), the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals held that for the purposes of determining appropriate venue, a worker’s compensation claim accrues at the time of the accident causing the injury. In that case, the plaintiff was injured on the job in January 2006. At the time, she lived in Washington County. She received medical payments and temporary-total-disability compensation until she reached maximum medical improvement in May 2009 (at which time she lived in Tallapoosa County).

Read More

Statute of Limitations

Jan 13, 2012

In Kendrick v. Lewis, [Ms. 2100527, Jan. 13, 2012] __ So. 3d __(Ala. Civ. App. 2012), the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals held, among other things, that regardless of whether a complaint has been filed, if there is no “bona fide intent” to serve the defendant until after the statute of limitations has run, and that defendant is not, in fact, served until after the statute of limitations runs, then the defendant can successfully assert a statute of limitations defense.

Read More

Workers’ Compensation – Judicial Estoppel

Jan 13, 2012

In White Tiger Graphics v. Clemons, [Ms. 2100482, Jan. 13. 2012] __ So. 3d __(Ala. Civ. App. 2012), the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals held that a plaintiff’s “assertion to the DIR [Department of Industrial Relations] that he was willing and able to perform some work that he was qualified to do [for the purposes of unemployment benefits] is not totally inconsistent with his claim [during the same period of time] to be permanently and totally disabled for workers’ compensation purposes.”

Read More

Piercing the Corporate Veil

Jan 06, 2012

In Heisz v. Galt Industries, Inc., [Ms. 1100193, Jan. 6, 2012] __ So. 3d __(Ala. 2012), the Supreme Court of Alabama reversed a judgment on a jury verdict awarding the plaintiffs $824,255. This case arose out of the plaintiffs’ asset purchase agreement with defendants and the defendants subsequent failure to fulfill certain terms of the asset purchase agreement.

Read More

Bankruptcy – Automatic Stay

Dec 16, 2011

In Bradberry v. Carrier Corp., [Ms. 1100994, Dec. 16, 2011] __ So. 3d __(Ala. 2011), the Alabama Supreme Court held that if one co-defendant files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, the automatic-stay provision of § 362 of the Bankruptcy Code does not act to stay proceedings against a debtor’s solvent co-defendants.

Read More

Pro Se Plaintiffs

Dec 16, 2011

In Minor Child “A,” by and through her mother F.P.J. v. Davis, [Ms. 2100832, Dec. 16, 2011] __ So. 3d __(Ala. Civ. App. 2011), the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals dismissed an appeal brought by a pro se parent on behalf of her minor child in a medical malpractice case.

Read More

Workers' Compensation – Standard of Substantial Evidence

Dec 16, 2011

In Johnson v. Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc., [Ms. 2100623, Dec. 16, 2011] __ So. 3d __(Ala. Civ. App. 2011), the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals held that there “was not substantial evidence before the circuit court from which it could have determined that the [plaintiff’s] injury did not arise out of and in the course of his employment and that his injury was not, therefore, compensable under the Act.”

Read More

Rule of Repose

Dec 16, 2011

In Martin v. Hodges Chapel, LLC, et al., [Ms. 2100446, Dec. 16, 2011] __ So. 3d __(Ala. Civ. App. 2011), the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals held, among other things, that “[t]he rule of repose begins running on a claim as soon as all of the essential elements of that claim coexist so that the plaintiff could validly file suit.” Id. (quoting American General Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Underwood, 886 So. 2d 807, 812 (Ala. 2004)).

Read More

Appeal

Dec 09, 2011

In Ex parte Limerick, [Ms. 1101201, Dec. 9, 2011] __ So. 3d __(Ala. 2011), the Supreme Court of Alabama granted a petition for writ of mandamus and ordered a circuit court to vacate an order granting a new trial under Ala. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

Read More

State Immunity

Dec 09, 2011

In Ex parte Fielding, [Ms. 1101327, Dec. 9, 2011] __ So. 3d __(Ala. 2011), the Supreme Court of Alabama held that a deputy sheriff who entered plaintiffs’ property and shot their dog was entitled to the State’s immunity under §14 of the Alabama Constitution of 1901. Fielding, a deputy sheriff, while on duty with the sheriff’s department, received a telephone call informing him that his wife and their dog had been attacked in front of the Jacksons’ home by a large dog.

Read More

Venue

Nov 18, 2011

In Ex parte Hampton Ins. Agency and Ginger Spencer, [Ms. 1101211, Nov. 18, 2011] __ So. 3d __(Ala. 2011), the Alabama Supreme Court held that Ala. Code § 6-3-2-(a)(3), the venue provision governing individuals, is the only venue provision that applies to a defendant that is an unincorporated entity operating as a sole proprietorship. Therefore, in an action against a sole proprietorship, venue is proper either “in the county of [the sole proprietorship’s] residence or in the county in which the act or omission complained of. . .occurred.” As a result, the Court held that proper venue in the case was Tuscaloosa County rather than Hale County, where it was originally filed.

Read More

Medical Malpractice

Nov 18, 2011

In Springhill Hospitals, Inc. v. Dimitrios Critopoulos, [Ms. 1090946, Nov. 18, 2011] __ So. 3d __(Ala. 2011), the Alabama Supreme Court held that the plaintiff’s expert in a medical malpractice case was not a “similarly situated healthcare provider” as required by the Alabama Medical Liability Act. Furthermore, because Plaintiff only had one expert testify about the breach of the standard of nursing care, the Court entered judgment as a matter of law in favor of the individual defendants against whom that expert testified. Plaintiff suffered pressure ulcers following a heart procedure and subsequently sued a variety of individuals and institutions involved in his post-operative care.

Read More

Insurance

Oct 28, 2011

In Employers Mutual Casualty Company v. Holman Building Co., LLC, [Ms. 1100106, Oct. 28, 2011] __ So. 3d __(Ala. 2011), the Alabama Supreme Court reaffirmed that the decision to allow an insurer to intervene in an underlying liability case lies within the broad discretion of the trial court. The case involved a putative class action resulting from defective “Chinese” dry-wall that was installed in the plaintiffs’ homes. The defendant homebuilder’s insurer moved to permissively intervene in order to have insurance issues decided as part of the underlying liability case. The trial court denied the insurer’s motion and the insurer appealed.

Read More

Appeals

Oct 21, 2011

In Lawson v. Harris Culinary Enterprises, LLC, [Ms. 1091751, Oct. 21, 2011] __ So. 3d __(Ala. 2011), the Supreme Court of Alabama reversed and rendered a $500,000.00 judgment in favor of Harris Culinary Enterprises, LLC on its fraud claims as to one of the defendants, Mitzi Lawson. This case arose from the purchase of a pizza franchise. During the purchase negotiations, Mitzi was married to a co-defendant, Sims Lawson. Sims formed SYM, Inc., also a co-defendant in this action, for the purpose of operating a pizza restaurant franchise. Sims was the president of SYM, Inc. SYM purchased a building in which to operate the franchise and that building was titled solely in Mitzi’s name. Harris alleged that SYM had made various fraudulent representations regarding the financial profitability of the pizza franchise.

Read More

Arbitration

Oct 21, 2011

In Aurora Healthcare, Inc. v. Ramsey, [Ms. 1091561, Oct. 21, 2011] __ So. 3d __(Ala. 2011), the Supreme Court of Alabama held that a trial court erred by denying Defendant Aurora Healthcare, Inc.’s motion to compel arbitration. This case arose out of the death of Plaintiff’s decedent, Mary Pettway, following her medical treatment at a nursing home owned and operated by the defendants. At the nursing home, an arbitration agreement was executed, along with other admission documents on behalf Pettway. In November of 2005, Ramsey, in her capacity as Administratrix of Pettway’s estate, filed a complaint in the circuit court against the defendants. The parties then engaged in litigation until November 3, 2006, when the defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration.

Read More

Immunity: Foster Parents

Oct 14, 2011

In Ex parte Carol Spurgeon, [Ms. 1101198, Oct. 14, 2011] So. 3d (Ala. 2011), a seven-year-old child was placed at the Spurgeons’ home in foster care. Two weeks after the placement, the child drowned in the Spurgeons’ swimming pool. A wrongful death action alleging negligence and wantonness claims was brought by the Administrator of the child’s estate.

Read More

Non-Final Judgments

Oct 07, 2011

In Jakeman v. Lawrence Group Management Co., LLC, [Ms. 1100290, Oct. 7, 2011] __ So. 3d __(Ala. 2011), the Alabama Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because it was from a non-final judgment. In the opinion, the Court reiterated some important appellate procedural rules. In the trial court, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims. The trial court conducted a hearing on the motion to dismiss on July 28, 2010 and announced on the record its intention to dismiss the claims. On August 1, 2010, the trial court signed an order dismissing both the original claims and the cross claims in the case. On August 2, 2010, one of the original defendants filed a post judgment motion pursuant to Rule 59(e) seeking to alter, amend, or vacate the order on the ground that the trial court improperly dismissed her cross-claim. The original August 1, 2010 order was not entered by the clerk of the trial court until September 17, 2010.

Read More

Applicability of Common Fund Doctrine

Oct 07, 2011

In Mitchell v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., [Ms. 2100184, Oct. 7, 2011] __ So. 3d __(Ala. Civ. App. 2011), the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals held that a subrogated insurance carrier is responsible for a pro rata share of the insured’s attorney fees incurred in obtaining a settlement payment against which the carrier has asserted a right of reimbursement. In short, the “common fund” exception applies to medical benefits paid by a subrogated insurance carrier.

Read More
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Next>>
(1 - 20 of 259)

OUR ATTORNEYS

ABOUT THE FIRM

AREAS OF PRACTICE

NEWS


MORE


CONTACT


  •