Source: http://alabamaappellatewatch.com/?m=200908
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 16:34:02+00:00

Document:
Grace v. Standard Furniture Manufacturing Company, Inc.
Smith v. Burkhalter et al.
Brown et al. v. Melton et al.
Brasfield & Gorrie, L.L.C. v. Soho Partners, L.L.C.
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. When a party directs a petition for mandamus to an order that the trial court entered in exercise of its discretion, the appellate court may compel the exercise of discretion, but it may not compel that exercise in a particular manner. The appellate court also may correct an abuse of discretion via a mandamus petition. When the order that the appellate court remands to the trial court is not a final judgment, the trial court may accept additional evidence before exercising its discretion and entering a new order. Ex parte S.C., No. 2080419 (Ala. Civ. App. Aug. 14, 2009).
The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals recently reversed an order compelling arbitration because the trial court record contained no evidence, other than the contract containing the arbitration clause, to prove that the transaction involved interstate commerce. Accent Realty, Inc. v. Snopl, No. 2080229 (Ala. Civ. App. Aug. 14, 2009). The contract at issue involved real estate sales in Huntsville, Alabama. The contract stated that the transactions "involved interstate commerce" and that "the contract(s) entered into by the parties concerning this property evidence [a] transaction involving and affecting commerce." The Court held that a party moving for arbitration must present evidence supporting its contention that the underlying transaction involves interstate commerce, and the contract, standing by itself, without "evidence by affidavit or otherwise," is not sufficient to meet the movant’s burden of proof.
The parties filed various motions following the circuit court’s modification of custody. One motion was untimely, and another was more in the nature of a separate proceeding. The court purported to grant one of these motions. None of this rendered the modification order non-final. The Court of Civil Appeals thus possessed appellate jurisdiction. A.M. v. J.S., No. 2071213 (Ala. Civ. App. Aug. 7, 2009).
This case involves a familiar walk through a tangle of dates. Ultimately, the Court of Civil Appeals decided that a flurry of post-judgment filings did not disturb the finality of the challenged judgment, so that it could exercise appellate jurisdiction over the case.
The juvenile court could not refuse to order a losing appellee to pay the costs of appeal: The appellate court had ordered, and the governing rule mandated, that the appellee pay those costs when its original judgment was reversed. The Court of Civil Appeals directed the juvenile court to enter an order taxing the costs of appeal against the losing appellee. M.B. v. S.B., No. 2080464 (Ala. Civ. App. Aug. 7, 2009).
This custody modification suit was before the Court of Civil Appeals for a second time. In the previous appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals had reversed a custody modification, and taxed the costs of the appeal against the mother, as the losing appellee. When the case returned to the juvenile court, the appellants (the children’s grandparents) moved to recover the costs of appeal, pursuant to the appellate court’s mandate. The juvenile court denied that motion.
Nelms v. Hillside Village Apartments d/b/a Hale Properties, et al.
Felder v. Allen, Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections, et al.
In Brannon v. BankTrust, Inc., Nos. 1060637, the Alabama Supreme Court discussed at length what constitutes an affirmative defense under Rule 8 of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals recently dismissed an appeal from an "interim judgment" ordering the plaintiff’s employer to provide medical treatment for injuries she sustained in the line and scope of employment. Read more about SouthernCare, Inc. v. Margaret Cowart, No. 2071117 below.

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