The issue before the Court was whether the trial court converted a Motion to Dismiss into a Motion for Summary Judgment. The Motion to Dismiss contained several exhibits in support of a dismissal. The trial court's order indicated that the matter was before the court on a motion for a judgment on the pleadings and that, after considering the arguments and briefs of the parties, it was granting the motion. The Supreme Court stated that "unless the trial court expressly declines to consider the extraneous material, its conclusions may be construed to include the extraneous material."

The trial court's order did not refer to or indicate that it considered any document other than the complaint, nor did it state that the court expressly excluded matters outside the pleadings. The trial court also cited DGB, LLC v. Hinds, 55 So. 3d 218 (Ala. 2010), which involved only a motion to dismiss and its corresponding standard of review. The trial court's judgment was phrased entirely in terms of a motion to dismiss. Because the proper standard applicable was a Motion to Dismiss, the Complaint, viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff properly stated a claim against the Defendants. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the dismissal and remanded the case back to the trial court. 

Minesaha, Inc., d/b/a Exprezit ("Minesaha"), appealed from a judgment entered by the Houston Circuit Court ("the circuit court") dismissing its action against the Town of Webb for denying an application for a liquor license. Minesha stated that the denial was arbitrary and based on race and national origin. The circuit court dismissed the action on the Town of Webb’s motion for summary judgment.

The Appeals Court cited the general rule for such cases that, “"[w]here there is no statutory right of direct appeal from a local government's decision . . . the only proper method of judicial review is by the common-law writ of certiorari." Although Minesaha did not style its complaint or its amended complaint as a petition for the common-law writ of certiorari, Minesaha specifically requested in its response to the town's "motion for summary judgment" that the circuit court treat its complaint as a petition for the writ of certiorari and generally requested "judicial review of the [town]'s decision in denying the application in accordance with the laws of the State of Alabama" in its amended complaint.

The Appeals Court concluded that Minesaha's complaint should properly be viewed as a petition for the common-law writ of certiorari, and the primary inquiry on appeal is therefore whether the circuit court correctly dismissed Minesaha's petition under the standards applicable to such proceedings. In its petition, Minesaha alleged that the town "arbitrarily" denied approval of its liquor-license application on the basis of Minesaha's owners' and operators' "race and national origins." Because Minesaha's allegations, if true, demonstrate that the town unconstitutionally discriminated against Minesaha by denying approval of its liquor-license application on the basis of race and national origin, the circuit court's judgment dismissing Minesaha's petition was reversible error, and this cause was remanded for further proceedings.