Case Title: Ex parte Sachiko Rigsby. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS (In re: Shoney's, Inc. v. Sachiko Rigsby) (Montgomery Circuit Court: CV 02-237; Civil Appeals : 2041069). Writ Denied. No Opinion.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 1061026

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 2007-05-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
REL: 05/25/07 Ex parte Sachiko Rigsby
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance
sheets of Southern Reporter.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334)
242-4621), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made
before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
OCTOBER TERM, 2006-2007
_________________________
1061026
_________________________
Ex parte Sachiko Rigsby
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
(In re:  Shoney's, Inc.
v.
Sachiko Rigsby)
(Montgomery Circuit Court, CV-02-237;
Court of Civil Appeals, 2041069)
WOODALL, Justice.
WRIT DENIED. NO OPINION.
See, Lyons, Stuart, Bolin, and Parker, JJ., concur.
Cobb, C.J., and Smith, J., dissent.
Murdock, J., recuses himself.
1061026
2
COBB, Chief Justice (dissenting).
This petition properly presented itself for review by
this Court because it states conflict as a ground for
certiorari review under Rule 39(a)(1)(D), Ala. R. App. P.,
asserting a conflict between the decision issued by the Court
of Civil Appeals in this case and Kohler Co. v. Miller, 921
So. 2d 436 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005), which discusses Masterbrand
Cabinets, Inc. v. Johnson, [Ms. 2030409, June 3, 2005] ___ So.
2d ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2005), which in turn discusses
factually analogous case authority.  Conflict between the
petitioner's case and another decided case is adequately
stated when a petitioner points out that the two cases reach
different results upon the application of the same principles
of law to situations where there is no significant factual
distinction.  I believe that the petitioner has met that
burden here.  The Court's rigorous application of the
particularity 
and 
specificity 
requirements 
of 
Rule
39(a)(1)(D)(2) to the petition in this case prevents our
review, on a hypertechnical basis, of an issue that may well
prove to be meritorious.  I believe that this decision to
avoid further review in this case flies in the face of the
1061026
3
governing principle of the appellate rules as expressed in
Rule 1, Ala. R. App. P.:
"These rules shall not be construed to extend or
limit the jurisdiction of these appellate courts as
established by constitution or law. They shall be
construed so as to assure the just, speedy, and
inexpensive 
determination 
of 
every 
appellate
proceeding on its merits."
Accordingly, I dissent from the denial of this petition.