Alabama Appellate Watch

The Supreme Court stated:

To the extent that the trial court's issuance of a preliminary injunction is grounded only in questions of law based on undisputed facts, our longstanding rule that we review an injunction solely to determine whether the trial court exceeded its discretion should not apply.  We find the rule applied by the United States Supreme Court in similar situations to be persuasive: "We review the District Court's legal rulings de novo and its ultimate decision to issue the preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion."  Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418, 428 (2006).

Slip Op. p. 6 (emphasis in original).  The Alabama Supreme Court then went on to expressly overrule any statements of the standard of review which conflict with this holding.  Id. at p. 7.

Unsing this standard, the Alabama Supreme Court  reversed the injunction.

The lone dissent was Chief Justice Cobb.  The Chief Justice did not object the the new statement of the standard of review, but instead stated that this was not a proper case to adopt it, as the facts were not undisputed and it was unfair to change the standard of review when the parties were not aware of any such change in their briefing.