Source: http://alabamaappellatewatch.com/?m=201006
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 16:02:21+00:00

Document:
McKnight v. Way et al.
Shanklin v. New Pilgrim Towers, L.P.
A.W. v. Wood, in his capacity as executive director of the Department of Youth Services, et al.
Kennedy v. Boles Investment, Inc.
Blevins v. Hillwood Office Center Owners’ Association et al.
In Pirtek USA, LLC v. Whitehead et al., No 1071570, the Alabama Supreme Court restated the standard of review applicable to reviewing a ruling on a motion filed pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4) collaterally attacking a foreign judgment on the basis that the judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction.
The prior panel rule states that when the decision of one panel of an appellate court conflicts with the decision of another panel, the decision that was issued first is binding until it is reversed by the United States Supreme Court or by an en banc decision. Writing for the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Carnes discussed the rule in Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc., 10-11471 (11th Cir. June 8, 2010), a case in which the Court reviewed the removal of a CAFA action. Judge Carnes mentioned the prior panel rule because Pretka addresses the manner in which a defendant may prove the amount in controversy for purposes of removal when the face of the complaint does not state the amount. Another panel of the Court analyzed the same topic in Lowery v. Alabama Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184 (11th Cir. 2007), also a CAFA action. Judge Carnes explained why, under the prior panel rule, the Lowery decision does not affect the holding in Pretka.
Okay v. Murray d/b/a Centennial Residential Developments, Inc.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.