Court of Civil Appeals Discusses Ore Tenus Standard of Review
In Baldwin v. Panetta, released September 19, 2008, the Court of Civil Appeals discussed the ore tenus standard of review.
Continue Reading...Ground Stated in Motion for New Trial Colors Standard of Review
In Beauchamp v. Coastal Boat Storage, LLC et al., No. 1061515 (Ala. Sept. 5, 2008), the Supreme Court held that when a plaintiff asserts as the sole ground for a motion for new trial that the verdict is against the great weight or preponderance of the evidence, a trial court order granting the motion for new trial, “’will be reversed for abuse of discretion where on review it is easily perceivable from the record that the jury verdict is supported by the evidence.’" Id. at *14 (quoting Jawad v. Granade, 497 So. 2d 571, 477 (Ala. 1986)). This is so even when the trial court does not state the basis for its order granting the motion for new trial, and there are errors in the trial record that warrant a new trial.
Continue Reading...Court Applies De Novo Review When Parties Stipulate To Relevant Facts
In Yeager v. Winstead, No. 2060583 (Ala. Civ. App. August 8, 2008), a per curiam opinion, the plaintiff appealed from a trial court order denying her request for postjudgment interest on a lump sum alimony judgment from which the plaintiff appealed. The Court of Civil Appeals reviewed the trial court order de novo because the parties, “stipulated to the facts to be considered by the circuit court and presented exhibits in support of those stipulations; the court heard no oral testimony.”
Continue Reading...
Continue Reading...
Supreme Court Reminds of the Standard of Review Applicable to Intermediate Appellate Courts
In Ex parte Singleton, released by the Alabama Supreme Court on July 25, 2008, the court reminds us of the standard of review applicable to intermediate appellate courts.
Continue Reading...
Supreme Court clarifies standard of review for appeal of injunction order
In Holiday Isle, Inc. v. Adkins, Ms. 1070252 (Ala. May 23, 2008) , in an 8-1 decision, the Alabama Supreme Court clarified that, when facts are undisputed and it is a question of law, legal conclusions in injunction orders are reviewed under a de novo standard, and not whether the trial court exceeded its discretion.
Continue Reading...
Lesser Known Standards of Review
The Court used two lesser known standards of review in the opinions that it issued last week. In Ex parte Johnson, No. 1061762 (Ala. May 16, 2008), the Court discussed the standard of review applicable to a petition for a writ of prohibition. In The Pittsburg & Midway Coal Mining Co. v. Tuscaloosa County et al., No. 1060496 (Ala. May 16, 2008), the Court considered the standard of review that governs a motion to dismiss a declaratory judgment action.
Continue Reading...
Use Common Law Certiorari for Review of Personnel Board Decision
“’The proper method of reviewing circuit court decisions involving appeals from the Jefferson County Personnel Board is by common-law petition for writ of certiorari.’ Ex parte Personnel Board of Jefferson County, 513 1029, 1031 (Ala. Civ. App. 1987). ‘Review of the writ of certiorari in this court is limited to consideration of the proper application of the law by the circuit court and whether that court’s decision is supported by the legal evidence.’ Copeland v. Personnel Board of Jefferson County, 498 So. 2d 854, 855 (Ala. Civ. App. 1986).’” Ex parte City of Birmingham, No. 2070068 (Ala. Civ. App. April 18, 2008).
Presumption of Correctness for Mixed Questions of Law and Fact
In Roberts v. Uni. of Alabama Hospital, No. 2070256 (Ala. Civ. App. April 18, 2008), a hospital lien action, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals held that, “[a]ppellate courts properly apply a presumption of correctness to factual determinations of trial courts, even in the context of mixed questions of law and fact.”
Trial Court's Failure to Comply With Section 25-5-88 of the Alabama Code Results In Reversal and Remand
Massey Chevrolet, Inc. v. Aderhold, released on April 4 by the Court of Civil Appeals, indicates the consequences of the trial court's failure to comply with section 25-5-88 in a workers' compensation case.
Continue Reading...Standard of Review in Boundary-Line Dispute Between Coterminous Landowners
Jacks v. Taylor, released by the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals on March 28, 2008 provides a statement of the standard of review in a boundary-line dispute between coterminous landowers.
Continue Reading...
Mandamus Review of Rulings on Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Facial and Factual Challenges
Ex parte Safeway Ins. Co. of Alabama, Inc., No. 1061613 provides an interesting discussion regarding mandamus review of a trial court's ruling on a motion to dismiss based on subject matter jurisdiction.
Continue Reading...Court of Civil Appeals Rejects Constitutional Challenge to Add-Back Tax Statute
The Court of Civil Appeals' opinion in Surtees v. VFJ Ventures, Inc., No. 2060478 (Ala. Civ. App. Feb. 8, 2008), contains an interesting, lengthy discussion of Alabama's add-back statute. After it rejected the reasons that appellee VFJ offered to support the trial court’s finding that the corporate income tax assessment that the Alabama Department of Revenue made against VFJ pursuant to Alabama’s add-back statute was in error, the Court of Civil Appeals reviewed, and ultimately refused, VFJ’s constitutional challenge to the statute. In doing so, the Court of Civil Appeals applied the following standard of review: “we ‘approach the question [of the constitutionality of a statute] with every presumption and intendment in favor of its validity, and seek to sustain rather than strike down the enactment of a coordinate branch of government.’. . . Moreover, where the validity of a statute is assailed and there are two possible interpretations, by one of which the statute would be unconstitutional and by the other would be valid, the courts should adopt the construction [that] would uphold it.’ . . . We must afford the Legislature the highest degree of deference, and construe its acts as constitutional if their language so permits.” Id. at 61-62 (internal citations omitted).
Continue Reading...
Ore Tenus Presumption of Correctness Heightened in Boundary Line and Adverse Possession Cases
In a routine case, when the trial court hears the evidence ore tenus, an appellate court presumes that the trial court’s findings based upon that testimony are correct. When the dispute at issue is a boundary line dispute or a case concerning adverse possession, the presumption of correctness is enhanced, particularly “if the trial court personally views the property in dispute.” Shirey v. Pitman, No. 2060574 (Ala. Civ. App. Nov. 30, 2007).
Court of Civil Appeals Explains Standard of Review of Judgments Terminating Parental Rights
In J.C. v. State Dept. of Human Resources, No. 206091, released October 12, 2007, the Court of Civil Appeals provided an extensive discussion of the appropriate standard of review of an order terminating parental rights. The court restated the well-settled doctrine that a juvenile court's factual findings, based on ore tenus evidence, are presumed to be correct and will not be disturbed unless plainly and palpably wrong. Of note is the court's explanation of the distinction between the ore tenus rule, which is a standard of appellate review, and the clear-and-convincing standard, which is a standard of proof that Alabama juvenile courts use in making the initial determination regarding whether to terminate parental rights.
Evidence must be viewed in light most favorable to plaintiff when reviewing summary judgment.
It is black letter law that , on summary judgment, the reviewing court "must review the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and must resolve all reasonable doubts against the movant." This rule was front and center in Ex parte Patel, No. 1060897 (Ala. Oct. 5, 2007). The Supreme Court found that both the trial court and the Court of Civil Appeals had failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, and thus reversed the granting of summary judgment. Click here to see the case and the application of this basic, yet important, rule.
Court Uses De Novo Review in Variety of Decisions
This week, the Alabama Supreme Court pointed out that the do novo standard that applies to review of a judgment as a matter of law is “materially indistinguishable” from the de novo standard of review the Court employs when it reviews an appeal from a summary judgment. Glass v. Birmingham Southern Railroad Co., No. 1050831 (Ala. Sept. 28, 2007)(FELA action). The Court also, “reviews de novo a trial court’s interpretation of a statute, because only a question of law is presented.” Alfa v. City of Mobile, No. 1051747 (Sept. 28, 2007)(action to collect license tax). Finally, the Court explained that when it reviews a judgment concerning a challenge to the validity of a settlement agreement, the Court makes a de novo review of the trial court’s decision if the trial court did not receive ore tenus evidence. Billy Barnes Enterprises, Inc. v. Williams,.No. 1090083 (Ala. Sept. 28, 2007); See also, Sierra Club v. TVA, No. 06-10729 (11th Cir. Oct. 4, 2007)(in Clean Water Act opinion, court explained that, “[w]e review de novo the district court’s orders granting TVA’s motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, upholding them if there are no genuine issues of material fact and if TVA is entitled to judgment as a matter of law”).
Method and Scope of Review of an Order Denying a Motion to Transfer Venue
In Ex parte Smiths Water and Sewer Authority, No. 1050329 (Ala. Sept. 14, 2007), the Alabama Supreme Court reiterated that "the proper method for obtaining a review of a denial of a motion for a change of venue in a civil action is to petition for the writ of mandamus." The court further restated the standard of review applicable to such rulings: "the scope of review is to determine if the trial court abused its discretion, i.e., whether it exercised its discretion in an arbitrary and capricious manner."
New Trial Ordered for Failure to Give Proposed Jury Charge
In Bailey v. Sawyer, No. 2050707 (Ala. Civ. App. Sep. 14), the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals ordered a new trial based on the trial court's refusal to give the the plaintiffs' proposed jury charge concerning undue influence on the testator.
Continue Reading...
Court of Appeals Affirms Ore Tenus Judgment
In J.W.M. v. Cleburne County Dep’t of Human Resources, No. 2060505 (Ala. Civ. App. Aug. 31, 2007), the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals affirmed a juvenile court judgment that terminated the appellant’s parental rights. The judgment was based on an ore tenus hearing. In affirming the judgment, the court of appeals described the standard of review for a judgment based on ore tenus proceedings. “In reviewing a judgment based on ore tenus proceedings, a trial court’s findings of fact will not be disturbed ‘unless those findings are plainly and palpably wrong and are not supported by the evidence.’ However, ‘the ore tenus rule does not extend to cloak a trial judge’s conclusions of law, or incorrect application of law to the facts.’ (citations omitted) ‘The appellate courts do not sit in judgment of the facts, and [they] review the factfinder’s determination of facts only to the extent of determining whether it is sufficiently supported by the evidence, that question being one of law.’”
Alabama Supreme Court Refuses to Adopt Abuse of Discretion Standard of Review for Trial Court's Application of Judicial Estoppel
In Middleton v. Caterpillar Industrial, Inc., released August 17, the Alabama Supreme Court refused to follow the majority of federal appellate courts and adopt an abuse of discretion standard when reviewing a trial court's application of judicial estoppel. As judicial estoppel is an affirmative defense, review of rulings based on it are subject to the de novo standard of review.
