Source: http://alabamaappellatewatch.com/?cat=74
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 08:15:12+00:00

Document:
On January 14, 2011, the Alabama Supreme Court vacated a $3.2 million wrongful death medical malpractice jury award and dismissed the appeal from the award because the Court found that the defendant had State immunity. Consequently, both the trial court and the Alabama Supreme Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case. It did not matter that the defendant did not challenge jurisdiction in the trial court because a party cannot waive a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction. Health Care Authority for Baptist Health v. Davis, No. 1090084 (Ala. Jan, 14, 2011).
In Claridy v. Claridy, [Ms. 2080385] (Ala. Civ. App. Feb. 5, 2010), the Court of Civil Appeals dismissed an appeal as being from a void judgment after the order was entered after the post-judgment motion had already been denied by operation of law.
The well-settled rule that a non-final judgment will not support an appeal resulted in two appeals being dismissed by the Court of Civil Appeals. In both Faulk v. Rhodes, [Ms. 2081005] (Ala. Civ. App. Feb 3, 2010), and Sexton v. Sexton, [Ms. 2080852] (Ala. Civ. App. Feb. 5, 2010), the Court of Civil Appeals determined that claims were left unresolved in the trial court. Because judgments are final only if the judgment resolves all claims of all parties, and there were no certification of finality pursuant to Ala. R. Civ. P. 54(b), the appeals had to be dismissed as being from non-final judgments.
A father moved under Rule 60(b) to set aside a child support order that had been entered ten months earlier. Though he specified no specific part of Rule 60(b), his motion could be construed as coming only under Rule 60(b)(1). Such motions must be brought within four months of the challenged order. The circuit court’s ruling on the father’s late motion was jurisdictionally void and would not support an appeal. Noll v. Noll, No. 2080736 (Ala. Civ. App. Jan. 29, 2010).
Posted in Appellate Jurisdiction, Rule 60(b), Rule 60(b)(1), Rule 60(b)(6)	| Tagged "Rule 60(b)" "Rule 60(b)(1)" "Rule 60(b)(6)"
A trial court had no jurisdiction to enter a permanent injunction while an appeal from its earlier decision, granting a preliminary injunction, was pending. The permanent injunction was void and would not support an appeal. Searle v. Vinson, Nos. 2080760, 2081155 (Ala. Civ. App. Jan. 29, 2010).
The trial court granted a preliminary injunction in this easement dispute. The defendants appealed that order. While their appeal was pending, the trial court entered a second order making the injunction permanent. The defendants appealed from that second order.

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