Court Opinion

ID: 7683875
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-30 03:15:41.346227+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:47:33.289750
License: Public Domain

The plaintiffs petition for the writ of mandamus is denied. Regarding the responsive pleading issue, see Rule 12(a), A.R.Civ.P., and Ex parte United States Gypsum Co.,533 So.2d 557, 559 (Ala. 1988). Regarding the issue of recusal, seeEx parte Hunt, 642 So.2d 1060 (Ala. 1994); Ex parteMelof, 553 So.2d 554, 557 (Ala. 1989); Ex parteBalogun, 516 So.2d 606, 609 (Ala. 1987); Matter ofSheffield, 465 So.2d 350, 357 (Ala. 1984).
WRIT DENIED.
HORNSBY, C.J., and MADDOX, STEAGALL and INGRAM, JJ., concur.