Rel: September 13, 2024

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) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections 

may be made before the opinion is published in Southern Reporter.

ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS

SPECIAL TERM, 2024

________________________

CL-2024-0532

________________________

Ex parte Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

(In re: Jemmstone Alabama, LLC

v.

Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission)

(Montgomery Circuit Court: CV-23-901800)

________________________

CL-2024-0533

________________________

Ex parte Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

(In re: Alabama Always, LLC, et al.

v.

Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission)

(Montgomery Circuit Court: CV-23-231)
CL-2024-0532, CL-2024-0533, CL-2024-0589, CL-2024-0590, CL-2024-

0591, CL-2024-0592, CL-2024-0593, and CL-2024-0594

2

_______________________

CL-2024-0589

________________________

Ex parte Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

(In re: Alabama Always, LLC, et al.

v.

Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission)

(Montgomery Circuit Court: CV-23-231)

________________________

CL-2024-0590

________________________

Ex parte Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

(In re: Southeast Cannabis Company, LLC

v.

Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission)

(Montgomery Circuit Court: CV-23-901637)

_______________________

CL-2024-0591

________________________
CL-2024-0532, CL-2024-0533, CL-2024-0589, CL-2024-0590, CL-2024-

0591, CL-2024-0592, CL-2024-0593, and CL-2024-0594

3

Ex parte Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

(In re: Pure By Sirmon Farms, LLC

v.

Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission)

(Montgomery Circuit Court: CV-23-901802)

________________________

CL-2024-0592

________________________

Ex parte Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

(In re: Verano Alabama, LLC

v.

Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission)

(Montgomery Circuit Court: CV-24-900009)

________________________

CL-2024-0593

________________________

Ex parte Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
CL-2024-0532, CL-2024-0533, CL-2024-0589, CL-2024-0590, CL-2024-

0591, CL-2024-0592, CL-2024-0593, and CL-2024-0594

4

(In re: TheraTrue Alabama, LLC

v.

Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission)

(Montgomery Circuit Court: CV-23-901653)

________________________

CL-2024-0594

________________________

Ex parte Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

(In re: Yellowhammer Medical Dispensaries, LLC

v.

Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission)

(Montgomery Circuit Court: CV-23-901798)

PER CURIAM.

The Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission ("the AMCC") 

petitions this court to issue a writ of mandamus to the Montgomery 

Circuit Court ("the circuit court") compelling the circuit court to comply 

with this court's mandate in Ex parte Alabama Medical Cannabis 

Commission, [Ms. CL-2024-0073, June 21, 2024] ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. Civ. 
CL-2024-0532, CL-2024-0533, CL-2024-0589, CL-2024-0590, CL-2024-

0591, CL-2024-0592, CL-2024-0593, and CL-2024-0594

5

App. 2024) ("AMCC I"), and to vacate all orders inconsistent with that 

mandate. We grant the petitions in part and deny them in part.

Background

In AMCC I, the AMCC petitioned this court to issue a writ of 

mandamus ordering the circuit court to vacate two discovery orders that 

it had entered in case number CV-23-231 -- Alabama Always, LLC v. 

Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission -- the "master case" for ongoing 

mass litigation relating to the licensing of businesses within the Alabama 

medical-cannabis industry. This court dismissed the petition as moot, 

concluding that 

"the [two discovery] orders entered in the master case are void 

orders arising from an action [(the master case)] that is barred 

by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. We direct the circuit 

court to dismiss the master case and to vacate all orders 

entered in that case including the [two discovery] orders. We 

dismiss this mandamus petition as moot."

AMCC I, ___ So. 3d at ___ (emphasis added). 

Many of the orders entered in the master case pertained to the cases 

purportedly consolidated with the master case, including the following 

actions filed by disappointed applicants for medical-cannabis integratedfacility licenses: Southeast Cannabis Company, LLC v. Alabama Medical 
CL-2024-0532, CL-2024-0533, CL-2024-0589, CL-2024-0590, CL-2024-

0591, CL-2024-0592, CL-2024-0593, and CL-2024-0594

6

Cannabis Commission, CV-23-901637; Pure By Sirmon Farms, LLC v. 

Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission, CV-23-901802; Verano 

Alabama, LLC v. Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission, CV-24-

900009; TheraTrue Alabama, LLC v. Alabama Medical Cannabis 

Commission, CV-23-901653; Yellowhammer Medical Dispensaries, LLC 

v. Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission, CV-23-901798; and

Jemmstone Alabama, LLC v. Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission

("the Jemmstone action"), CV-23-901800.

Upon motions filed in the above actions, the circuit court, between 

June 25, 2024, and July 16, 2024, and over the objection of the AMCC,

entered orders directing the circuit-court clerk to "place" or "file" certain 

pleadings, motions, orders, and other documents into the records of those 

actions that had previously been entered only in the master case. 

Additionally, the circuit court amended the State Judicial Information 

System ("SJIS") case-action-summary sheets in some of those actions to 

add the individual AMCC members as parties.

On July 11, 2024, the circuit court entered an order in the master 

case ("the dismissal order") providing, in pertinent part:
CL-2024-0532, CL-2024-0533, CL-2024-0589, CL-2024-0590, CL-2024-

0591, CL-2024-0592, CL-2024-0593, and CL-2024-0594

7

"Pursuant to the Opinion in Ex parte Alabama Medical 

Cannabis Commission, CL-2024-0073 (Ala. Civ. App. June 21, 

2024), it is ORDERED as follows: 

"1. This action is DISMISSED.

"2. All orders rendered and entered in this action are 

VACATED....

"All prior orders rendered in other cases which remain 

pending before this Court, but which were filed into ... the 

Alacourt filing system within this case file while it functioned 

as a Master Case File, shall remain in full force and effect. As 

explained on the record in hearings and in this Court's May 

16, 2024[,] Order (Doc. 1071), it was and remains the Court's 

intent to have rendered and entered orders in the various 

cases over which this Court still exercises jurisdiction, 

regardless of the case file into which the rendered orders were 

placed."

On July 9, 2024, and July 25, 2024, respectively, the AMCC filed petitions 

for the writ of mandamus, challenging the circuit court's orders. We 

consolidated the petitions, which arise out of the master case and the 

actions filed by disappointed applicants, as described above.

Issues

The AMCC argues that the circuit court failed to strictly comply 

with this court's mandate in AMCC I because it did not simply dismiss 

the master case and vacate all the orders entered in that case; instead, it 

says, the circuit court took additional actions that were not expressly 
CL-2024-0532, CL-2024-0533, CL-2024-0589, CL-2024-0590, CL-2024-

0591, CL-2024-0592, CL-2024-0593, and CL-2024-0594

8

permitted by our mandate by "transferring" the orders, other documents,

and parties from the master case to the other cases. Furthermore, the

AMCC argues that the circuit court purported to retain jurisdiction over 

orders that were entered in the master case but that pertained to the 

other actions.

We do not address the issue raised by the AMCC in its petitions 

regarding the alleged addition of the AMCC's members to some of the 

actions. Any error the circuit court may have committed in amending the 

SJIS in some of the actions to add the individual AMCC members as 

parties does not impact the AMCC itself, which is a separate entity 

without standing to assert the rights of its constituent members. See Ex 

parte Alabama Med. Cannabis Comm'n, [Ms. CL-2024-0463, Aug. 23, 

2024] ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2024) ("AMCC II"). The AMCC's 

members are mentioned in the mandamus petitions, but they are not 

petitioners themselves, so any issues regarding their rights are not 

properly before us in these petitions. Id.

Standard of Review

"[A] petition for the writ of mandamus is the appropriate vehicle for 

seeking a trial court's compliance with an appellate-court mandate or 
CL-2024-0532, CL-2024-0533, CL-2024-0589, CL-2024-0590, CL-2024-

0591, CL-2024-0592, CL-2024-0593, and CL-2024-0594

9

directive," Ex parte W.L.K., 222 So. 3d 357, 358 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015), 

including a mandate or directive issued in previous mandamus 

proceedings. See Ex parte C.H., [Ms. CL-2023-0820, Feb. 16, 2024] ___ 

So. 3d ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2024) (issuing writ of mandamus compelling 

juvenile court to comply with mandate from previous opinion granting 

writ of mandamus). "The question of whether a trial court ... has 

correctly interpreted and applied an appellate court's decision is properly 

reviewable by a petition for a writ of mandamus." Ex parte United States 

Fid. & Guar. Co., 585 So. 2d 922, 924 (Ala. 1991). 

"Mandamus is a drastic and extraordinary writ that will be 

issued only when there is: 1) a clear legal right in the 

petitioner to the order sought; 2) an imperative duty upon the 

respondent to perform, accompanied by a refusal to do so; 3) 

the lack of another adequate remedy; and 4) properly invoked 

jurisdiction of the court."

Ex parte United Serv. Stations, Inc., 628 So. 2d 501, 503 (Ala. 1993).

Analysis

"'It is the duty of the trial court ... to comply strictly with the 

mandate of the appellate court according to its true intent and meaning, 

as determined by the directions given by the reviewing court. No 

judgment other than that directed or permitted by the reviewing court 
CL-2024-0532, CL-2024-0533, CL-2024-0589, CL-2024-0590, CL-2024-

0591, CL-2024-0592, CL-2024-0593, and CL-2024-0594

10

may be entered ....'" Ex parte Alabama Power Co., 431 So. 2d 151, 155 

(Ala. 1983) (quoting 5 Am. Jur. 2d, Appeal and Error § 991 (1962)).

In AMCC I, this court ordered the circuit court to dismiss the 

master case and to vacate all orders entered in that case because they 

were void. In footnote 7 of that opinion, however, this court noted that 

the opinion did not address the validity of any orders that may have been 

entered separately in the Jemmstone action, which might be effective in 

that case. We implicitly recognized in AMCC I that the circuit court could 

have entered identical orders in the consolidated cases and that the 

voidness of the orders entered in the master case would not affect the 

validity of the same orders entered in the other actions. 

In the underlying cases, the circuit court evidently believed that it 

had entered the orders relevant to these mandamus petitions in both the 

master case and the consolidated cases to which they pertained. Rule 

42(a), Ala. R. Civ. P., provides:

"When actions involving a common question of law or fact are 

pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial 

of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order 

all the actions consolidated; and it may make such orders 

concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid 

unnecessary costs or delay."
CL-2024-0532, CL-2024-0533, CL-2024-0589, CL-2024-0590, CL-2024-

0591, CL-2024-0592, CL-2024-0593, and CL-2024-0594

11

(Emphasis added.) The circuit court had ordered that all "filings," 

including orders, would be "filed" only in the master case as a matter of 

administrative convenience, but, according to the dismissal order, the

"intent" was that all orders would also be "entered" in the consolidated 

action to which it "related." 

However, Rule 58(c), Ala. R. Civ. P., provides, in pertinent part:

"Upon rendition of an order or a judgment ..., the clerk shall 

forthwith enter such order or judgment in the court record. 

An order or a judgment shall be deemed 'entered' within the 

meaning of these Rules [of Civil Procedure] and the Rules of 

Appellate Procedure as of the actual date of the input of the 

order or judgment into the State Judicial Information 

System."

For purposes of Rule 58(c), an order is "entered" in a particular case only 

when that order is input into the SJIS on the case-action-summary sheet 

bearing the case number. See Kornegay v. Kornegay, 369 So. 3d 1052, 

1061 (Ala. Civ. App. 2022). Regardless of the language in Rule 42(a), 

when cases are consolidated, each case retains its separate identity and 

"judgments or orders must be entered separately in each consolidated

case in order to resolve the issues in each case." Ex parte Glassmeyer, 

204 So. 3d 906, 908-09 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016). Despite its subjective 

intention, the circuit court did not "enter" an order in a "related" 
CL-2024-0532, CL-2024-0533, CL-2024-0589, CL-2024-0590, CL-2024-

0591, CL-2024-0592, CL-2024-0593, and CL-2024-0594

12

consolidated case by referencing that case in an order that was entered 

only in the record in the master case. See AMCC II, supra.

In the dismissal order, the circuit court indicated that those orders 

that had been rendered as to pending cases, but which had been entered

only in the master case, would remain "in full force and effect." However, 

in AMCC I, this court specifically determined that all the orders entered 

in the master case were void, i.e., without legal effect. See City of 

Huntsville v. COLSA Corp., 71 So. 3d 637, 642 (Ala. 2011). The circuit 

court was not free to reconsider that issue, which had become the law of 

the case. See Ex parte King, 821 So. 2d 205 (Ala. 2001). To the extent 

that the dismissal order purports to give those orders validity, the order 

violates our mandate in AMCC I, and that part of the dismissal order is 

due to be vacated. See S&M Assocs., Inc. v. Players Recreation Grp., 

LLC, [Ms. SC-2023-0394, Apr. 12, 2024] ___ So. 3d ___, ___ (Ala. 2024)

("'"'[A]ny act by a trial court beyond the scope of an appellate court's 

[mandate] is void for lack of jurisdiction.'"'" (quoting Jackson v. State, 

177 So. 3d 911, 939 (Ala. Crim. App. 2014))). Thus, we grant the petitions 

insofar as they seek a vacatur of the last full paragraph of the dismissal 
CL-2024-0532, CL-2024-0533, CL-2024-0589, CL-2024-0590, CL-2024-

0591, CL-2024-0592, CL-2024-0593, and CL-2024-0594

13

order, and we direct the circuit court to refrain from exercising 

continuing jurisdiction over any orders entered in the master case.

The question remains as to whether the circuit court violated our 

mandate by entering orders and other filings into the pending cases that 

had previously been entered only in the master case. An order that is 

void ab initio is a legal nullity that cannot be given any lawful effect in 

collateral proceedings. See Singh v. Mooney, 261 Va. 48, 51, 541 S.E.2d 

549, 551 (2001). Thus, the circuit court could not "transfer" the void 

orders from the master case to the other cases to give them legal effect. 

The AMCC maintains that the circuit court did just that because the 

circuit-court clerk scanned the void orders and filings from the master 

case and input those into the records of the other cases. We disagree. 

"[A]n appellate court 'considers the substance of a motion, rather 

than its style, in determining the kind of motion a party has filed.'" 

D.M.C. Enters., Inc. v. Hope, 100 So. 3d 1102, 1107 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012)

(quoting Cannon v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 590 So. 2d 191, 193 

(Ala. 1991)). In the relevant motions, the movants did not request that 

the void orders from the master case be transferred to their cases; 

instead, the movants requested that the circuit court additionally enter 
CL-2024-0532, CL-2024-0533, CL-2024-0589, CL-2024-0590, CL-2024-

0591, CL-2024-0592, CL-2024-0593, and CL-2024-0594

14

the orders and other filings in the record of their respective actions. In 

substance, the motions only asked the circuit court to comply with Rule 

58(c) and the law from Ex parte Glassmeyer by entering the pertinent 

orders and other filings in each consolidated action so that those orders 

and filings would become effective in those cases as originally intended 

by the circuit court. See Rollins v. Rollins, 903 So. 2d 828, 832 (Ala. Civ. 

App. 2004) (holding that, "even though a judgment may have been 

rendered by the trial judge, the judgment is not effective until it is 

entered"). The circuit court did not remove the void orders and filings 

from the record in the master case, where they remain, and transfer them 

to the other actions; it copied those orders and filings and entered them 

in the other actions. Trial courts commonly enter identical orders in 

related cases when it resolves common issues, and we do not see any 

reason why the circuit court could not adhere to that practice in the 

underlying cases to carry out its original intent. 

We conclude that the circuit court did not violate our mandate in 

AMCC I by rectifying its earlier error and entering the orders and other 

filings into the other pending cases. In mandating that the circuit court 

vacate the void orders entered in the master case, we did not intend to 
CL-2024-0532, CL-2024-0533, CL-2024-0589, CL-2024-0590, CL-2024-

0591, CL-2024-0592, CL-2024-0593, and CL-2024-0594

15

deprive the circuit court of the power to enter orders and other filings in 

the other related cases to resolve the issues in those cases. We intended 

only that the master case would be dismissed and that all of the orders 

entered therein would be vacated. Thus, we deny the petitions for a writ 

of mandamus insofar as they request this court to direct the circuit court 

to enter an order striking or vacating the orders and other filings entered 

in the pending cases other than the master case.

In reaching our decision, we express no opinion as to the validity of 

the actions, other than the master case, or of the enforceability of the 

orders now entered in those actions, which are issues not before this court

in these mandamus proceedings.

CL-2024-0532 -- PETITION GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED 

IN PART; WRIT ISSUED.

CL-2024-0533 -- PETITION GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED 

IN PART; WRIT ISSUED.

CL-2024-0589 -- PETITION GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED 

IN PART; WRIT ISSUED.

CL-2024-0590 -- PETITION GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED 

IN PART; WRIT ISSUED.
CL-2024-0532, CL-2024-0533, CL-2024-0589, CL-2024-0590, CL-2024-

0591, CL-2024-0592, CL-2024-0593, and CL-2024-0594

16

CL-2024-0591 -- PETITION GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED 

IN PART; WRIT ISSUED.

CL-2024-0592 -- PETITION GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED 

IN PART; WRIT ISSUED.

CL-2024-0593 -- PETITION GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED 

IN PART; WRIT ISSUED.

CL-2024-0594 -- PETITION GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED 

IN PART; WRIT ISSUED.

All the judges concur.