Source: http://alabamaappellatewatch.com/?m=200804
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 15:52:10+00:00

Document:
In Ex parte Vulcan Materials, [Ms. 1051184] (Ala. April 25, 2008) , the Alabama Supreme Court clarified the allowable scope of post judgment discovery in connection with a review of punitive damages, including the scope of discovery regarding a defendant’s financial position. The decision also includes interesting concurrences by Justice Murdock and Chief Justice Cobb.
The Birmingham News has an interesting article about recent statistics on the caseload at the Alabama Supreme Court. Click the link for the article entitled "Alabama Supreme Court releases data: Fewer cases, decisions take longer."
1041765 – Welch v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.
In deciding whether to apply the law of the case doctrine in a case that has been appealed multiple times, the appellate court should consider the purpose of the rule and the circumstances surrounding the initial appellate decision in the case. Swafford v. Norton, No. 2060722 (Ala. Civ. App. April 18, 2008).
“’The proper method of reviewing circuit court decisions involving appeals from the Jefferson County Personnel Board is by common-law petition for writ of certiorari.’ Ex parte Personnel Board of Jefferson County, 513 1029, 1031 (Ala. Civ. App. 1987). ‘Review of the writ of certiorari in this court is limited to consideration of the proper application of the law by the circuit court and whether that court’s decision is supported by the legal evidence.’ Copeland v. Personnel Board of Jefferson County, 498 So. 2d 854, 855 (Ala. Civ. App. 1986).’” Ex parte City of Birmingham, No. 2070068 (Ala. Civ. App. April 18, 2008).
In Ex parte Nationwide Ins. Co., No. 1061708 (Ala. April 18, 2008), the Alabama Supreme Court confirmed that, “an appeal is not an adequate remedy to review the defense, ‘[i]n a narrow class of cases involving fictitious parties and the relation-back doctrine’ that a claim is barred by the statute of limitations.” (quoting Ex Parte Jackson, 780 So. 2d 681, 684 (Ala. 2000)).
The concept of mootness applies to a writ of mandamus. “A case is moot when there is no real controversy and it seeks to determine an abstract question which does not rest on existing facts or rights. . . . This same principle holds with respect to petitions for writ of mandamus.” Ex parte Novartis Phar. Corp., No. 1070312 (Ala. April 18, 2008)(emphasis supplied).
White Sands Group, L.L.C., Valentine, and Rolison v. PRS II, LLC, et al.
Ex parte Nationwide Insurance Company, In re: Alexander v. Herron et al.
D.L.L. II v. B.J. and R.S.J.
The Alabama Supreme Court and the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals heard oral arguments today at Samford University in Birmingham. Here is a link to an article about the arguments entitled "Students Watch the Alabama Supreme Court in Action" from myfoxal.com.

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