Source: http://alabamaappellatewatch.com/?m=201003
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 15:54:30+00:00

Document:
In summary judgment proceedings, it is well-settled that parties may rely only on evidence that would be admissible at trial. In Stephens v. First Commercial Bank, No. 1080648 (Ala. March 12, 2010), Stephens argued that he had no obligation to present evidence in opposition to the bank’s summary judgment motion on its claim for breach of a promissory note because the affidavit that the bank offered in support of its motion violated the best evidence rule and the prohibition against hearsay. The Alabama Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed the summary judgment for the bank.
Ordinarily, an appellate court lacks jurisdiction if the order from which a party appeals is not a final order. In Kennedy v. Boles Investment, Inc., No.1080607 (Ala. March 12, 2010), the Alabama Supreme Court found that under the unusual circumstances of that ore tenus proceeding, the Court had jurisdiction over the appeal even though the trial court did not expressly dispose of all of the claims and counterclaims in the order at issue.
In two of the opinions that it issued last week, the Alabama Supreme Court discussed standards of review that receive attention less frequently than others. In Intergraph Corporation et al. v. Bentley Systems Incorporated, Nos. 1080300, 1080405 (Ala. March 12, 2010), the Court described the standard of review that it applies to findings of special masters. In Archer v. The Estate of Archer, Nos. 1090093, 1090094, 1090096 (Ala. March 12, 2010), the Court outlined the standard of review that it uses when interprets a statute.
Penick v. Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge F&AM of Alabama, Inc.
Brooks v. Franklin Primary Health Center, Inc.
Where the circuit court received only arguments on a stipulated factual record, the appeals court gave the circuit court’s judgment “no presumption of correctness,” and so reviewed that judgment under a de novo standard. Ex parte Ala. Dept. of Revenue, No. 1070925 (Ala. Feb. 26, 2010).
Posted in business income, de novo review, presumption of correctness, Standards of Review, tax	| Tagged tax "business income" "de novo review" "presumption of correctness"
Posted in child support, Record, settlement agreement	| Tagged "settlement agreement" "child support"
Lisa Dixon, as administratrix of the estate of Maurine Humphreys v. Hot Shot Express, Inc.

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