In AmerUs Life Ins. Co. v. Smith, the Alabama Supreme Court reversed a $6,500,000 verdict in favor of the plaintiff on his fraud claim and provided a helpful discussion of the reasonable reliance standard.
Continue Reading...M.B. v. R.P and P.P considered the appropriate consequences for the failure to serve an appellate brief as indicated on the certificate of service and concluded that, under the circumstances of that case, dismissal of the appeal was not called for.
Continue Reading...In Bailey v. Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc., Case No. 07-12258 (11th Cir. July 29, 2008), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals answered a previously unsettled question regarding removals from state court. The Eleventh Circuit adopted the "last served defendant" rule, meaning that each defendant has 30 days from the date of service to remove the case to federal court, even in the time to remove for other defendants has already run.
Interestingly, this case was decided by only two judges - Judge Anderson and a visiting judge from the Sixth Circuit. Judge Hull originally was on the panel, but she recused herself after oral argument. Therefore, the case was decided by a two judge quorum.
In a special concurrence in Ramsey v. Ramsey, Ms. 2060661 (Ala. Civ. App. May 23, 2008), Judge Pittman provided a reminder as to the function of the appellate courts.
In his special concurrence to the opinion affirming the trial court, Judge Pittman stated that he "write[s] specially to stress that the Alabama trial court's specification of one particular ground for its decision . . . does not warrant reversal even if the Alabama trial court's recitation of that ground was erroneous." Slip Op. p. 25. He further stated that "[i]t is a fundamental proposition that '[t]he question to be determined by [an appellate] court is whether [a] judgment is correct, considering the evidence in [the] cause, not whether the ground upon which [the judgment] professes to proceed is tenable.'" Id. (internal citations omitted, emphasis added by court).
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...In an opinion that addresses a variety of Title
[T]he mischief shotgun pleadings causes undermines the public’s respect for the courts – the ability of the courts to process efficiently, economically, and fairly the business placed before them. At an increasing rate, civil litigants are avoiding the federal district courts; they go elsewhere, to other fora, for the resolution of their disputes, especially complicated commercial disputes. The federal courts’ civil caseloads reflect this. . . . This has a negative effect on the development of the rule of law in the federal courts. When issues that ought to be presented to the courts for clarification, and to stabilize the rule of law, are removed to non-judicial fora for resolution, the public bears the cost . . .
Davis et al. v. Coca-Cola Bottling
Continue Reading...
In a major change in Alabama toxic tort law, the Alabama Supreme Court overruled Garrett v. Raytheon, 368 So. 2d 516 (Ala. 1979), which had established the "date of last exposure" test for accrual of a cause of action based on exposure to a toxic substance. In Griffin v. Unocal Corp., [Ms. 1061214] (Ala. Jan. 25, 2008), the Supreme Court overruled Garrett and adopted Justice Harwood's dissent in Cline v. Ashland, [Ms. 1041076] (Ala. 2007), and held that a claim for exposure to a toxic substance now accrues "when there has occurred a manifest present injury." Griffin was a 5-4 decision. The dissents argued that it should be up to the legislature to make this change.
Interestingly, while the opinion stated that this new rule will be applied prospectively, the plaintiff in this case received special treatment. The Court stated that the rule "will be applied prospectively, except in this case, where it will apply retroactively. Griffin, as the prevailing party in bringing about a change in the law, should be rewarded for her efforts."
Click the links for articles on this important case:
"Alabama high court sets new timetable for toxic exposure lawsuits; Reverses ruling last year in Bessemer worker's case" - Birmingham News
"Alabama Supreme Court opens door for toxic lawsuits" - Mobile Press Register
"Alabama Supreme Court reverses course, offers hope to ill workers" - AP
An appeal could not be dismissed merely because the notice of appeal was signed by an out-of-state lawyer, even if that lawyer was not admitted pro hac vice in Alabama. Ex parte Taylor, No. 1051315 (Ala. Jan. 18, 2008). Though a criminal case, Taylor has obvious relevance to civil practice.
Continue Reading...In Ex parte State of Alabama, Ms. 1061553 (Dec. 7, 2007), the Alabama Supreme Court held that even a delay of five years in raising state immunity cannot waive the right to assert that defense.
Continue Reading...
The Court of Civil appeals decided the following question of first impression in Burton & Assoc, Ltd. v. Morris, No. 2060802 (
In Carraway Methodist Health Systems v. Wise, No. 1041483 (Ala.
The Eleventh Circuit has issued several recent decisions under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, further expanding the prodigious case law that finds its source in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). None of the cases breaks new ground, so far as this author can determine. The decisions instead walk established paths under Rule 702, confirming doctrinal conclusions that have been reached before. Nor do these cases treat appellate issues — apart from reciting the applicable standard of review. Given Daubert’s prominent role in civil litigation, though, we thought it might be valuable to readers to digest these cases here.
Continue Reading...The Supreme Court of Alabama, on a writ of certiorari, and answering questions of first impression, held that the words “error” and “mistake” in a tax statute do not embrace intentional dishonesty. Ex parte HealthSouth Corp., 1060296 (Ala. Aug. 24, 2007). The court also decided that equity prevented a dishonest taxpayer from seeking a refund.
Continue Reading...Enter keywords:
