Title: Ex parte Andalusia-Opp Airport Authority. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS (In re: Diamond Concrete & Slabs, LLC v. Andalusia-Opp Airport Authority and Southern Structures Corporation) (Covington Circuit Court: CV-07-73; Civil Appeals : 2100114). Writ Quashed. No Opinion.

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

Rel: 08/17/2012
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) 229-
0649), 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
SPECIAL TERM, 2012
____________________
1101399
____________________
Ex parte Andalusia-Opp Airport Authority
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
(In re: Diamond Concrete & Slabs, LLC
v.
Andalusia-Opp Airport Authority and Southern Structures
Corporation)
(Covington Circuit Court, CV-07-73;
Court of Civil Appeals, 2100114)
MAIN, Justice.
WRIT QUASHED.  NO OPINION.
Malone, C.J., and Woodall and Bolin, JJ., concur.
Murdock, J., concurs specially.
1101399
MURDOCK, Justice (concurring specially).
We are not presented in this matter with the question
whether, under the "law of the case" doctrine, the
interlocutory judgment of the trial court on the breach-of-
contract claim asserted by Diamond Concrete & Slabs, LLC,
bound the trial court with respect to its adjudication of the
other claim pending before it, the prompt-pay-act claim.  See
Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P. (stating that a judgment "which
adjudicates fewer than all the claims ... shall not terminate
the action as to any of the claims or parties ..., and the
order ... is subject to revision at any time before the entry
of judgment adjudicating all the claims"); Imperial Crown
Marketing Corp. v. Wright, 560 So. 2d 1025, 1028 (Ala. 1989)
("Once a court renders a final judgment ... that judgment
becomes the conclusive law of the case, subject only to
appeal."  (Johnstone, J., dissenting) (emphasis added));
Estate of Pruyn v. Axmen Propane, Inc., 354 Mont. 208, 216,
223 P.3d 845, 852 (2009) ("Because [the prior] Opinion and
Order did not adjudicate all of the claims, rights and
liabilities of all of the parties, there was no final
disposition of the case ...  [and] we hold that [party's]
2
1101399
law-of-the-case argument is misplaced."); Langevine v.
District of Columbia, 106 F.3d 1018, 1023 (D.C. Cir. 1997)
("Interlocutory orders are not subject to the law of the case
doctrine and may always be reconsidered prior to final
judgment.").   If the central premise of the opinion of the
Court of Civil Appeals as to the "law of the case" remains
intact, then so must the Court of Civil Appeals' conclusion
based on that premise, namely that Diamond had already
established that it had a subcontract with the Andalusia-Opp
Airport Authority.  See Diamond Concrete & Slab, LLC v.
Andalusia-Opp Airport Auth., [Ms. 2100114, Aug. 12, 2011] ___
So. 3d ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2011).
Nor do we have before us the question whether the Airport
Authority adequately objected to the instruction of the trial
court that "lumped together" the Airport Authority and
Southern Structures Corporation for purposes of obtaining a
determination by the jury as to whether a contract existed
between the Airport Authority and Diamond.
3