Motion to Reconsider Treated as Motion for Protective Order in Case Seeking Mandamus Review of Order Allowing Discovery in Medical Liability Act Case

In Ex parte Gentiva Health Services, Inc., released by the Alabama Supreme Court on November 14, 2008, the court reviewed a trial court's order allowing discovery of privileged materials in a medical malpractice act even though the party against whom discovery was sought had not filed a motion for protective order in the trial court. 

Continue Reading...

Rule 54(b) Certification Inappropriate Where Claims Are Intertwined

In North Alabama Electric Cooperative v. New Hope Telephone Cooperative, the Alabama Supreme Court dismissed a Rule 54(b) interlocutory appeal because the claim for common law indemnity that was adjudicated by the trial court was intertwined with the claim for contractual indemnity that was still pending before the trial court. 

Continue Reading...

Writ of Mandamus Vehicle for Pendente Lite Review

In Amberson v. Long, No. 2061191 Ala. Civ. App. (June 13, 2008), a mother appealed from an order modifying child custody. The father responded that “the order from which the mother appeals is a pendente lite custody order that will not support an appeal.” The mother characterized the order as a final, appealable "temporary custody award." The court of civil appeals explained that, "[a]lthough somewhat confusing, an order awarding `temporary' custody can be either a pendente lite order or a final order. . . . The record reflects that the order awarding the father custody was, in fact, a pendente lite order. The case had been set only for a pendente lite hearing, no testimony was taken, the order does not resolve all the issues raised in the father's modification petition, and the order itself indicates that it is ‘PDL,’ which appears to be a reference to the term ‘pendente lite.’ Because review of pendente lite orders maybe obtained only through a petition for a writ of mandamus, and because the mother did not seek a writ of mandamus, the mother's appeal must be dismissed.”

Law of the Case Doctrine Not Obligatory

In deciding whether to apply the law of the case doctrine in a case that has been appealed multiple times, the appellate court should consider the purpose of the rule and the circumstances surrounding the initial appellate decision in the case. Swafford v. Norton, No. 2060722 (Ala. Civ. App. April 18, 2008). Continue Reading...

Mandamus Proper to Review Fictitious Party Issue

In Ex parte Nationwide Ins. Co., No. 1061708 (Ala. April 18, 2008), the Alabama Supreme Court confirmed that, “an appeal is not an adequate remedy to review the defense, ‘[i]n a narrow class of cases involving fictitious parties and the relation-back doctrine’ that a claim is barred by the statute of limitations.” (quoting Ex Parte Jackson, 780 So. 2d 681, 684 (Ala. 2000)). Continue Reading...

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Moot

The concept of mootness applies to a writ of mandamus. “A case is moot when there is no real controversy and it seeks to determine an abstract question which does not rest on existing facts or rights. . . . This same principle holds with respect to petitions for writ of mandamus.” Ex parte Novartis Phar. Corp., No. 1070312 (Ala. April 18, 2008)(emphasis supplied).

Continue Reading...

Mandamus Proper Vehicle for Seeking Relief from a Judgment Under Rule 60(b)

In Ex parte Overton and Waldrop, No. 1050973, the Alabama Supreme Court granted a mandamus petition seeking relief from a judgment under Rule 60(b).   Continue Reading...

Court Refuses to Issue Writ of Mandamus to Revive Untimely Summary Judgment Motion

As a general rule, the Alabama Supreme Court may review the denial of a motion for summary judgment when the basis for the motion is a claim of State-agent immunity.  Although the defendants based their summary judgment motion on State-agent immunity in this case, the Court refused to review the  denial of the motion because the trial court's decision was based on the fact that the defendants filed the motion months after it was due under the court's sceduling order.   Ex parte Sawyer & Finch, Nos. 1051249 & 1051304 (Ala. October 26, 2007). Continue Reading...