Court Opinion

ID: 9653547
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:48:33.248624+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:59.952617
License: Public Domain

*567MURDOCK, Justice
(concurring in part and concurring in the result).
I concur in the main opinion except as to Parts I and U.D., as to which I concur in the result. I -write separately to address briefly the continuity-of-the-enterprise issue discussed in Part I.
The main opinion declines to revisit Brown v. Economy Baler Co., 599 So.2d 1 (Ala.1992), and Asher v. KCS International, Inc., 659 So.2d 598 (Ala.1995) (per Hornsby, C.J., with only three Justices concurring and one Justice concurring in the result), insofar as they stand for the proposition that all four of the elements of the continuity-of-the-enterprise test must be met in order to hold that a successor corporation is a mere continuation of its predecessor. The main opinion also declines to address Parker’s related and more specific argument that Brown and Asher should be overruled to the extent, among other things, that they require the fourth of the four continuity-of-the-enterprise elements to be satisfied, even if all the other three elements are met. Because Parker does not supply us with a sufficient rationale for revisiting these cases, see, e.g., Dykes v. Lane Trucking, Inc., 652 So.2d 248, 251 (Ala.1994), I concur in the result as to the main opinion’s refusal to do so.
As to the “subissue” of dissolution, upon which the main opinion ultimately relies to resolve the continuity-of-the-enterprise issue in this case, please see my special writing in Parett Trucking, Inc. v. Telecom Solutions, Inc., 989 So.2d 513, 523 (Ala.2008) (Murdock, J., concurring in part and concurring in the result in part).