Source: http://alabamaappellatewatch.com/?m=200911
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 17:09:04+00:00

Document:
Collins v. Scenic Homes, Inc., et al.
Barrett v. Radjabi-Mougadam is a reminder that documents submitted at summary judgment must be cerified or otherwise authenticated. In Barrett, the Alabama Supreme Court reversed a summary judgment because the trial court considered documents that were not properly authenticated and that violated the best evidence rule.
When the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals certifies a question to the Alabama Supreme Court, the "’particular phrasing used in the certified question is not to restrict the [Alabama] Supreme Court’s consideration of the problems involved and the issues as the Supreme Court perceives them to be in its analysis of the record certified in this case.’ Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama, Inc. v. Nielsen, 116 F.3d 1406, 1414 (11th Cir. 1997) (quoting Martinez v. Rodriguez, 394 F.2d 156, 159 n.6 (5th Cir. 1968) (citations omitted))." The Alabama Supreme Court may rephrase a certified question to enable the Court to address the "’basic issue implicated by th[e] question’ and ‘contemplated by the Court of Appeals in its certification.’" Holcim (US), Inc. v. The Ohio Casualty Insurance Company and Industrial Services of Mobile, Inc., No. 1080233 (Ala. Nov. 13, 2009)(quoting John Deere Co. v. Gamble, 523 So. 2d 95, 99 (Ala. 1988)).
State of Alabama v. Nguyen et al.
Swanstrom, et al. v. Teledyne Continental Motors, Inc., et al.
Two common procedural issues – what happens when a notice of appeal is filed prematurely and what is the effective date of an order – were addressed in Landry v. Landry, [Ms. 2080171, 2080372] (Ala. Civ. App. Nov. 6, 2009).
Barber v. Cornerstone Community Outreach, Inc.
Penick v. Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge F & A M of Alabama, Inc.
The Court Civil Appeals dismissed the appeal in Sims v. Sims, [Ms. 2070697] (Ala. Civ. App. Nov. 6, 2009), for lack of jurisdiction because it was an appeal of a non-final judgment. The trial court’s order stated that the marital property must be divided equitably, but did not actually divide the property. The Court of Civil Appeals held that the order was not final until the marital property was actually divided and, therefore, the appeal was dismissed becuase there was no final judgment.

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