Case ID: so2d_778/html/0839-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "THOMPSON, Judge. CRAWLEY, Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The UTILITIES BOARD OF the CITY OF DAPHNE v. The CITY OF FAIRHOPE.
    2990562 and 2990645.
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    Sept. 22, 2000.
    M. Kathryn Knight of Vickers, Riis, Murray & Curran, L.L.C., Mobile, for appellant.
    Caine O’Rear III and Windy Cockrell Bitzer of Hand Arendall, L.L.C., Mobile, for appellee.
   THOMPSON, Judge.

AFFIRMED. NO OPINION.

See Rule 53(a)(1) and (a)(2)(A), Ala.R.App.P.; Perley v. Tapscan, Inc., 646 So.2d 585 (Ala.1994); and Alabama Power Co. v. Drummond, 559 So.2d 158 (Ala.1990).

The Supreme Court of Alabama transferred the appeal to this court, pursuant to § 12-2-7(6), Ala.Code 1975.

ROBERTSON, P.J., and YATES and MONROE, JJ., concur.

CRAWLEY, J., dissents.

CRAWLEY, Judge,

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent from this court’s affirmance of the order granting a preliminary injunction. I do not believe the City of Fairhope alleged or proved either that without the injunction it would suffer an irreparable injury or that it had no adequate remedy at law. If, as the City of Fairhope argues, the Daphne Utilities Board breached the 1950 contract, then Fairhope does have an adequate remedy at law, because it can recover damages. See Martin v. City of Linden, 667 So.2d 732 (Ala.1995).