Court Opinion

ID: 9676123
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:15:35.1455+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:44.249405
License: Public Domain

BLOODWORTH, Justice
(concurring specially).
It is, perhaps, self-evident that I concur in the majority opinion, since I was one of the dissenters in State of Alabama v. Killian Wholesale Grocery Co., 289 Ala. 691, 271 So.2d 499 (1972), overruled by the present decision.
I think I ought to add, however, that I was opposed to granting the petition for writ of certiorari in the present case because it did not comply with Rule 39, Rules of the Supreme Court, in my judgment as no grounds of review, as set out in Rule 39, were averred.
Perhaps, this case demonstrates one of the inadequacies of our present Rule 39, insofar as a litigant wishes to review the "validity of a prior decision of this Court.
Consider the case here. Had the Court of Civil Appeals failed to follow our decision in Killian, supra, which that court is, by law, constrained to do, this would have provided a “conflict” ground for review by this Court on certiorari; on the other hand, having properly followed our decision in Killian, the losing taxpayer is completely frustrated by not having any grounds of Rule 39 upon which to invite our review by certiorari of our former decision in Killian.
It is therefore because a majority of this Court decided to grant the writ and review the decision in Killian, and being bound thereby, that I join herein in concurring.