Title: Ex parte Jennifer Knapp Gilmore et al. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS (In re: Jennifer Knapp Gilmore et al v. Hugh Harold Jones et al.) (Washington Circuit Court: CV-07-12; Civil Appeals : 2101129). Writ Denied. No Opinion.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1110717
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: May 11, 2012

Rel: 05/11/2012
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance
sheets of Southern Reporter.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-
0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before
the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012
____________________
1110717
____________________
Ex parte Jennifer Knapp Gilmore et al.
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
(In re: Jennifer Knapp Gilmore et al.
 
v. 
Hugh Harold Jones et al.)
(Washington Circuit Court, CV-07-12;
Court of Civil Appeals, 2101129)
MAIN, Justice.
WRIT DENIED.  NO OPINION.
Malone, C.J., and Woodall and Bolin, JJ., concur.  
Murdock, J., concurs specially.
1110717
MURDOCK, Justice (concurring specially).
The Court of Civil Appeals bases its opinion in this case
on a statement found in Corpus Juris Secundum.  The court
quotes from that treatise as follows:
"'In the absence of fraud or collusion, a
judgment for or against a governmental body, such as
a municipal corporation, county, town, school or
irrigation district, or other local governmental
agency or district, or a board or officers properly
representing it, is binding and conclusive on all
residents, citizens, and taxpayers with respect to
matters adjudicated which are of general and public
interest, such as questions relating to public
property, contracts, or other obligations.'"
Gilmore v. Jones, [Ms. 2101129, March 2, 2012] ___ So. 3d ___,
___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2012) (quoting 50 C.J.S. Judgments § 1156
(2009) 
(footnotes 
omitted) (emphasis added)).  Although it may
be that the law of Alabama does, in fact, align with this
statement, the general principle reflected therein does not
speak to the situation where individuals own land so situated
in relation to a roadway, particularly in rural areas, as to
give them a unique, private interest in the use of that
roadway that goes well beyond any "general and public
interest."
The Court of Civil Appeals couples its quotation from
Corpus Juris Secundum with a citation to Boles v. Autery, 554
So. 2d 959, 961 (Ala. 1989), and, in essence, the following
2
1110717
reasoning:  Because, under Boles, a county is an essential
party to any case involving a dispute over whether a road is
public or private, the individual landowners in this
particular case must of necessity be bound by a judgment
brought only against the county.
The petition before us does not challenge the above-
described reasoning.  I therefore concur in the denial of the
writ.
3