Eleventh Circuit Applies Unusual "Extremely Stringent" Standard of Review
The Eleventh Circuit applies an "extremely stringent" standard to review a new trial order based on a district court's finding that a jury verdict is against the great weight of the evidence. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Southeast Floating Docks, Inc. et al., No. 08-14133 (11th Cir. June 16, 2009). The Court explained that, "this more rigorous standard of review ensures the district court does not simply substitute its own credibility choices and inferences for the reasonable choices and inferences made by the jury." The Eleventh Circuit applies a more deferential standard when a new trial order is based on jury misconduct "or other prejudicial trial events that 'contaminate' the jury's deliberative process."
Appeal Dismissed for Lack of Final Judgment
In Hall v. Reynolds, No. 1080408 (Ala. June 19, 2009), the trial court granted a motion for preliminary injunction but did not determine whether the plaintiff was entitled to a permanent injunction. After a bench trial, the trial court entered a "Final Order and Judgment." Defendant filed “what purported to be a postjudgment motion, which the trial court denied on November 11, 2008. On December 22, 2008, Hall filed a notice of appeal to this Court.” The Court dismissed the appeal because it was not from a final judgment that disposed of all of the claims against all of the parties. "’ [I]t is not the title of an order that makes it final; rather, the test of a judgment's finality is whether it sufficiently ascertains and declares the rights of the parties.' Ex parte DCH Recr'l Med. Gtr., 572 So. 2d 1162, 1164 (Ala. Civ. App. 1990)(citing McCulloch v. Roberts, 290 Ala. 303, 276 So. 2d 425 (1973)).”
Continue Reading...Constitutional Issue Not Waived Though Designated as Affirmative Defense Rather Than Counterclaim
Reviewing an action for declaratory and injunctive relief, the Alabama Supreme Court held that the issue of the constitutionality of appropriations legislation was properly before the Court even though the Governor’s administration should have raised the issue as a counterclaim rather than as an affirmative defense. Rule 8(c) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure allows a court to treat a mistakenly designated affirmative defense as a counterclaim. More importantly, “the constitutionality of § 4 was argued by both sides at the trial-court level, and the trial court definitively ruled on the issue. Moreover, the Riley administration specifically identified the constitutionality of § 4 of H.B. 328 as an issue on appeal, and both sides have argued the merits of that issue to this Court.” Governor Bob Riley v. Joint Fiscal Committee of the Alabama Legislature et al., No. 1080468 (Ala.June 19, 2009).
Continue Reading...Cases Released June 26, 2009
From the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals:
D.B. v. Coffee County Department of Human Resources
Gordon, Dana, Still, Knight & Gilmore, LLC v. Jefferson County
Complete List of Cases from the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
From the Alabama Supreme Court:
Ex parte Sumerlin; Petition for Writ of Mandamus (In re: Williford v. Toole et al.)
J.B. v. Lawson State Community College et al.
Smith v. Slack Alost Development Services of Alabama, LLC
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Brown
No Attorney Fees When Collecting on Supersedeas Bond - Court Overturns and Qualifies Precedent
Plaintiffs who successfully defended their judgment on appeal could not recover attorney fees incurred during the appeal when collecting against a supersedeas bond. Centering its discussion on appellate Rule 8, the Supreme Court of Alabama overturned and qualified precedent, and seems to have barred the recovery of appellate attorney fees through supersedeas bonds. Jones v. Regions Bank, No. 1060896 (Ala. Jun. 12, 2009).
Continue Reading..."Good Count / Bad Count" Error Yields New Trial
After being charged on five claims, the jury returned a general verdict for the plaintiff. Two of the claims were not supported by substantial evidence. The verdict was thus flawed under the “good count / bad count” rule. The Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the judgment entered on the verdict, and remanded the case for a new trial on the viable claims. Mobile OB-GYN, P.C. v. Baggett, Nos. 1071020, 1071081 (Ala. Jun. 12, 2009).
Continue Reading...Summary Judgment Denial Not Reviewed By Mandamus Despite Involving Time Bar Against Previously Fictitious Party
A defendant sought mandamus review of the circuit court’s denial of its motion for summary judgment. The motion presented issues of fictitious-party practice and the statute of limitations. Because the trial court had not reached the limitations issue, and because that issue might make the fictitious-party question irrelevant, the defendant had an adequate remedy other than mandamus. The Supreme Court of Alabama thus denied the writ. Ex parte Brian Nelson Excavating, LLC, No. 1071473 (Ala. Jun. 12, 2009).
Continue Reading...Cases Released June 19, 2009
From the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals:
Simmons v. Coosa County Board of Education
M.G. v. Etowah County Department of Human Resources
Hatch v. NTW Incorporated d/b/a National Tire and Battery Company
McConico v. Correctional Medical Services, Inc.
Complete List of Cases from the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
From the Alabama Supreme Court:
Cases Released June 12, 2009
From the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals:
Rose v. Safeway Insurance Company of Alabama, Inc.
Complete List of Cases from the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
From the Supreme Court of Alabama:
Mobile OB-GYN, P.C. v. Baggett
QORE, Inc., d/b/a QORE Property Sciences v. Bradford Building Company, Inc.
