Court Opinion

ID: 9655893
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 19:24:37.810332+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:23.010212
License: Public Domain

MURDOCK, Justice
(concurring in the result).
None of the contracts Coosa Cable Company, Inc., had with its customers at Maple Village extended beyond the date of initiation of service to those customers by DireePath, LLC. Under the facts presented here, I concur in the result.
*96I also write separately to address the appellate standard of review of judgments granting or denying permanent injunctive relief.
In stating that “[t]he entry of a permanent injunction is reviewed de novo,” the main opinion repeats a statement made in some previous cases by this Court. 42 So.3d at 93 (citing TFT, Inc. v. Warning Sys., Inc., 751 So.2d 1238, 1242 (Ala.1999)). I remain unable to see how this Court can continue to articulate this singular standard of appellate review for permanent injunctions in light of the fact that many such injunctions depend upon factual findings made by a trial court based upon ore tenus evidence. See Kappa Sigma Fraternity v. Price-Williams, 40 So.3d 683, 695 (Ala.2009) (Murdock, J., concurring in the rationale in part and concurring in the result); City of Dothan v. Eighty-Four West, Inc., 871 So.2d 54, 60 (Ala.Civ.App.2003) (Murdock, J., concurring specially on application for rehearing) (tracing the source of the de novo rule in permanent-injunction cases to a case in which ore tenus evidence was not material to the trial court's judgment and noting other cases affording deference to the trial court’s judgment granting or denying permanent injunctive relief where evidence was presented ore tenus (cited with approval in Holiday Isle, LLC v. Adkins, 12 So.3d 1173, 1176 (Ala.2008), which disavowed the articulation of a uniform rule of de novo review, albeit in a case involving a preliminary injunction)). The main opinion is correct in its subsequent observation that “ ‘a trial court’s consideration of ore tenus testimony has a bearing upon the standard of review we apply to the entry of a permanent injunction.’ ” 42 So.3d at 93 (quoting Classroomdirect.com, LLC v. Draphix, LLC, 992 So.2d 692, 701 (Ala.2008)). Consequently, it is inaccurate to state in the first instance that “a permanent injunction is reviewed de novo.” Some are; some are not.