Title: Glasscock v. Wallace

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

488 So. 2d 1346 (1986)
Raymond GLASSCOCK
v.
George C. WALLACE, et al.
84-429.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
April 25, 1986.
Jim L. DeBardelaben of McPhillips, DeBardelaben & Hawthorne, Montgomery, for appellant.
Jeffery A. Foshee and Charles S. Coody, Montgomery, for appellees.
ALMON, Justice.
This appeal arises from the action which was the subject of the decision in Teague v. Glasscock, 456 So. 2d 277 (Ala. 1984). The trial court's order on remand adequately addresses the primary contention presented in this appeal, and we adopt its reasoning and holding as part of the opinion of this Court:
The court set aside the judgments entered against the defendants and entered judgments in their favor.
Other than the issue as to whether Governor Wallace's Rule 60(b)(6) motion was due to be granted, plaintiff argues only that this Court should revisit its prior decision in this case because it reversed on a ground not raised by the parties.
This Court overruled Glasscock's application for rehearing in the prior appeal of this case. His request that we now overturn the prior decision amounts to a second application for rehearing. "No second application for rehearing will be considered unless the rehearing reversed or substantially modified the original opinion of the court." Rule 41, A.R.Civ.P. Furthermore, the decision in the prior appeal is the law of the case. Congress of Industrial Organizations v. McAdory, 246 Ala. 198 (1944), cert. dismissed, 325 U.S. 472, 65 S. Ct. 1395, 89 L. Ed. 1741 (1945); Premier Industrial Corp. v. Marlow, 292 Ala. 407, 295 So. 2d 396 (1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1033, 95 S. Ct. 515, 42 L. Ed. 2d 308 (1974). Because the appeal raises only this issue regarding the judgment against Teague and the Department of Education, it is due to be dismissed as to these defendants.
The judgment of the trial court in favor of Governor Wallace is due to be, and it is hereby, affirmed. The appeal from the judgment in favor of Teague and the Department of Education is dismissed.
AFFIRMED AS TO WALLACE; APPEAL DISMISSED AS TO TEAGUE AND THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION.
MADDOX, BEATTY and HOUSTON, JJ., concur.
TORBERT, C.J., concurs in the result.
[1]  Rule 3(d)[, A.R.A.P.,] does not require that a co-defendant be served by the clerk with a copy of the notice of appeal. However, the committee comments note that `In accordance with the [former] practice under Code 1940, Title 7, § 804, even parties not joining in the appeal are given a copy of the notice of appeal.'"
[2]  The opinion of the Alabama Supreme Court can be read [as indicating] that the court believed the back pay issue was before it. At [456 So. 2d 280] the court said, `Plaintiff, in effect, seeks back pay for work not performed, on the theory that he was denied the right to continue working, when, in fact, he never sought to continue working.' (Emphasis supplied.)"