Source: http://alabamaappellatewatch.com/?m=200901
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 16:14:41+00:00

Document:
Ex parte Massey Chevrolet, Inc., Petition for Writ of Mandamus; In re: Aderhold v. Massey Chevrolet, Inc.
In Brown v. General Motors, Case No. 1061660, the Alabama Supreme Court overruled Tittle v. Steel City Oldsmobile GMC Truck, Inc., 544 So.2d 883 (Ala. 1989) and held that a claim for breach of repair warranty accrues at the time a manufacturer breaches its contractual obligation to repair, not at the time of the tender of delivery of the good.
In Ex parte The Terminix International Company Limited Partnership, No. 1061247, the Alabama Supreme Court reaffirmed its long-standing requirement that a timely filed motion for a protective order is a jurisdictional prerequisite to mandamus review of an order compelling discovery.
In Eldridge v. Eldridge, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals dismissed an appeal in a case originating in the probate court as from a void judgment because postjudgment motions in the probate court were not timely filed.
On January 16, 2009, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals dismissed Rhodes v. Fulmer, Case No. 2070664, as untimely filed.
MPI Acquisition, LLC d/b/a Manco Power Sports v. Charlene Northcutt et al.
Patricia Ann Hamilton v. Employees’ Retirement System of Alabama et al.
Bell Carr, Jr., et al. v. International Refining and Manufacturing Company d/b/a IRMCO, et al.
In Championcomm.net of Tuscaloosa, Inc. v. Morton, [Ms. 1070488] (Jan. 9, 2009), the Alabama Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of an arbitration award because there was no "final judgment." Ala. Code 6-6-15 sets out the procedure by which an arbitration award may be appealed, and it states that "the clerk or register shall enter the [arbitration] award as the judgment of the court." In this case, although the arbitration award was filed with the court, it was never "entered" by the clerk as a judgment. Therefore, because there was no final judgment which had been entered, the Supreme Cout lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, and the appeal was dismissed.
Although it was decided in the criminal law context, the case Ex parte King, [Ms. 1071540] (Ala. Jan. 9, 2009), may be instructive in civil cases. In King, the Alabama Supreme Court held that mandamus review of a pre-trial ruling on a motion in limine regarding evidence is not approrpiate. The Court noted that there were no published opinions in Alabama covering this scenario, but, well settled propositions show that such a review is not allowed. Evidentiary rulings are reviewed to determine whether a trial court exceeded its discretion. These types of rulings are not approrpiate for mandamus review because "circumstances involving alleged errors of judgment, or errors in the exercise of judicial discretion, [do] not constitute grounds for invoking supervisory mandamus." Slip Op. p. 6, quoting Ex parte Nice, 407 So. 2d 874, 882 (Ala. 1981).
In Ex parte AIG Baker Orange Beach Wharf, [Ms. 1071345] (Ala. Jan. 9, 2009), the Alabama Supreme Court held than an order transferring a case based on forum non conveniens is only proper where venue is proper in the original county. If venue is improper in the original county, then a transfer based on forum non conveniens is inappropriate, and the case would have to be sent back to the original county, even though venue is not proper there.

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