Source: http://alabamaappellatewatch.com/?m=201004
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 15:56:59+00:00

Document:
Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs v. Community Service Programs of West Alabama, Inc.
Knoedler v. Blinco et al.
Volvo Trucks North America, Inc. v. Dolphin Line, Inc.
Chestang et al. v. IPSCO Steel, Inc., et al.
Directory Assistants, Inc. v. Cooke, Cameron, Travis, and Company P.C., released April 16, 2010, discusses potential challenges when a party seeks to challenge domestication of a valid foreign judgment.
In Wicks v. Wicks, released by the Court of Civil Appeals on April 16, 2010, the court discussed the ule that a trial court’s failure to hold a hearing on postjudgment motions constitutes reversible error. It held that the harmless error exception to that rule was not applicable where the husband alleged the wife’s fraudulent failure to list substantial assets in a divorce settlement agreement.
In Ex parte Jackson Hospital & Clinic, Inc., released by the Supreme Court of Alabama on April 16, 2010, the court issued a writ of mandamus voiding a trial court order that vacated a summary judgment in favor of petitioners. Because the summary judgment order had been pending for more than ninety days, the trial court lacked jurisdiction at the time it purported to vacate it and the oral rendition that ocurred within the 90 day period was not sufficient.
New Acton Coal Mining Company, Inc. v. Woods et al., No. 1081092 (Ala. April 9, 2010), illuminates the procedural distinction, for purposes of appeal, between claims separated for trial under ARCP 42(b) and claims severed for separate trials under ARCP 21. Pursuant to Rule 42(b), the trial court in Woods ordered thirteen trials of the 26 plaintiffs’ claims against the defendant. Six plaintiffs moved for a new trial at the conclusion of the second of thirteen trials, arguing that the damages awards in their favor were inadequate. The Alabama Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ appeal from the order denying their new trial motion because the plaintiffs did not appeal from a final judgment.
In Spinks v. Automation Personnel Services, Inc., No. 1081379 (Ala. April 9, 2010), the Alabama Supreme Court summarized the deferential standard of review that it uses in appeals from orders granting or denying a motion for preliminary injunction. The Court wrote, "'[T]he grant of, or refusal to grant, a preliminary injunction rests largely in the discretion of the trial court and that court’s latitude in this area is considerable; if no abuse of that discretion is shown, its action will not be disturbed on appeal.’ This Court has defined an abuse of discretion as discretion that ‘exceed[s] the bounds of reason, all the circumstances before the lower court being considered.’"
Reversing its decision in Carter v. Treadway Trucking, Inc., 611 So. 2d 1034 (Ala. 1992), the Alabama Supreme Court held that the plaintiff in Robertson v. Gaddy Electric and Plumbing, LLC, No. 1081351 (Ala. April 9, 2010), did not waive his appeal of the Rule 50 judgment as a matter of law on his wantonness claim by not raising the issue in his new trial motion.
Directory Assistants, Inc. v. Cooke, Cameron, Travis and Company, P.C.
The Baldwin County Planning and Zoning Commission v. Montrose Ecor Rouge, L.L.C.
Spinks v. Automation Personnel Services, Inc.
New Acton Coal Mining Company, Inc. v. Woods et al.
Woven Treasures, Inc. v. Hudson Capital, L.L.C.
Hughes v. The Mitchell Company, Inc.

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