Source: http://alabamaappellatewatch.com/?m=200712
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 16:05:16+00:00

Document:
Alabama Department of Environmental Management v. Alabama Rivers Alliance, Inc.
Dyess, et al. v. Bay John Developers II, L.L.C.
Ex parte Smith Wrecker Service, Inc. and Frey, In re: Jackson v. Smith Wrecker Service, Inc.
Ex parte Meadowbrook Insurance Group, Inc., In re: Andrews v. Meadowbrook Insurance Group, Inc., et al.
Special Assets, L.L.C. v. Chase Home Finance, L.L.C.
Ex parte Hollis & Wright, P.C., et al., In re: Gadson, et al. v. United Wisconsin Life Insurance Company, et al.
Raley v. Main, as finance director of the State of Alabama, et al.
In HIlb, Rogal & Hamilton v. Beirsdoerfer, No. 1060522, released December 14, the Supreme Court held that post-judgment motions which have become mooted are not subject to denial by operation of Rule 59.1. The court also concluded, in a matter of first impression, that a party who fails to raise its remittitur arguments on appeal from the grant of a motion for a new trial in its favor does not waive those arguments.
Kendrick v. Earl’s, Incorporated et al.
Montiel v. Estate of Gonzalo F. Montiel and Mobile Memorial Gardens, Inc.
In Ex parte State of Alabama, Ms. 1061553 (Dec. 7, 2007), the Alabama Supreme Court held that even a delay of five years in raising state immunity cannot waive the right to assert that defense.
The Court of Civil Appeals dismissed an appeal in a worker’s comp case, holding that the trial court’s rule 54(b) certification was ineffective because it did not dispose of an entire claim in the case. SCI Alabama Funeral Services, Inc. v. Hester, No. 2060260 (Ala. Civ. App. Nov. 30, 2007).
In a routine case, when the trial court hears the evidence ore tenus, an appellate court presumes that the trial court’s findings based upon that testimony are correct. When the dispute at issue is a boundary line dispute or a case concerning adverse possession, the presumption of correctness is enhanced, particularly “if the trial court personally views the property in dispute.” Shirey v. Pitman, No. 2060574 (Ala. Civ. App. Nov. 30, 2007).
Although an appellate court ordinarily will not review an appeal from the denial of a motion for summary judgment, the Court of Civil Appeals reviewed the trial court’s denial of Vulcan Lands’ motion for summary judgment in its attempt to obtain a franchise tax refund from the State of Alabama. Vulcan Lands, Inc. v. Surtees, No. 2060607 (Ala. Civ. App. Nov. 30, 2007).
Ex parte Partners in Care, Inc., In re: Sherman v. Partners in Care, Inc.
Ex parte Phil Bowman, In re: Heard v. APV North America, Inc., et al.

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