Case Title: Ex parte Paula Denise Shively. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS (In re: Paula Denise Shively v. CRR Hospitality, LLC, et al.) (Baldwin Circuit Court: CV 04-577; Civil Appeals : 2050271). Writ Denied. No Opinion.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 1060337

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 2007-03-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
REL: 03/30/2007
Shively
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
____________________
1060337
____________________
Ex parte Paula Denise Shively
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
(In re: Paula Denise Shively
v.
CRR Hospitality, LLC, et al.)
(Baldwin Circuit Court, CV-04-577;
Court of Civil Appeals, 2050271)
PER CURIAM.
WRIT DENIED.  NO OPINION.
1060337
2
See, Lyons, Woodall, Stuart, Smith, Bolin, and Parker,
JJ., concur.  
Cobb, C.J., dissents.  
Murdock, J., recuses himself.
1060337
3
COBB, Chief Justice (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent from the denial of this petition
for the writ of certiorari.  To the extent this Court's denial
rests upon a strict application of the particularity and
specificity requirements of Rule 39(a)(1)(D), Ala.R.App.P., I
believe that such an application should defer to the policy
set out in Rule 1 for applying the Alabama Rules of Appellate
Procedure:
"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."
(Emphasis added.)
Based upon my review of Paula Denise Shively's  petition,
I conclude that Shively adequately asserted that a conflict
exists between the no-opinion affirmance issued by the Court
of Civil Appeals in her case and that court's opinion in  City
of Auburn v. Brown, 638 So. 2d 1339 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993).  I
believe that Shively's assertion of a conflict sufficiently
raised for review the issue whether in affirming the trial
court's judgment, the Court of Civil Appeals disregarded the
treating physician's testimony concerning the origin and
1060337
4
extent of Shively's injuries.  I believe that if Shively's
position that the Court of Civil Appeals did ignore the
treating 
physician's 
testimony is 
supported 
by 
the record, 
her
position would have merit; therefore, I would have granted the
petition for a review of the record on that basis.