Ex parte Butts, [Ms. 1140438, June 5, 2015] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2015). The defendant in a civil case was indicted and moved for a stay; the circuit court denied the stay and she petitioned for mandamus. She “argue[d] that there is a bright-line rule in which an indictment would automatically cause a stay to issue in the civil case,” but the Supreme Court held that “that is not the standard.” Defendant was sued for misappropriating funds from a business she owned with the plaintiff; she was indicted for theft on the same basis. Dissolution of the business became an issue, which required determining the value of the business. The Court holds that valuing the business is not sufficiently parallel to the allegations of theft to require a stay of the civil action in regard to the valuation of the business.
Related Documents: Butts 6-5-15