We are committed to sharing decisions and providing legal updates that may be beneficial to you and your teams. Included below are summaries of cases recently released by Alabama Appellate Courts. Please reach out to any member of our
Appellate Practice
group
with any questions.
Warm regards,
Team
Huie
|
|
|
|
|
Alabama Appellate Opinions Released
November 3, 2017
|
|
Civil Procedure
Johnston v. Castles & Crowns, Inc.
After Castles & Crowns filed claims of conversion, civil conspiracy, negligence and wantonness, trespass to chattel, and unjust enrichment claims against Johnston, Johnston counterclaimed against Castles & Crowns and its owner, alleging defamation, negligence and wantonness, conspiracy, and tortious interference with business and contractual relations. At trial, Castles’ conversion, civil conspiracy and unjust enrichment claims were submitted to the jury, as were Johnston’s claims of defamation and tortious interference with business and contractual relations. The court instructed the jury that it should only find for Castles on the unjust enrichment claim if it found in favor of Johnston on the conversion and conspiracy claims. However, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Castles on the conversion, conspiracy, and unjust enrichment claims. The jury also found for Castles and against Johnston on the defamation and tortious interference claims.
Shortly thereafter, the trial court entered a final judgment on the verdict, and set aside the judgment for Castles on the unjust enrichment claim as being inconsistent with the court’s instructions. Johnston then filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that she was entitled to a new trial based on the inconsistent verdict, and that the trial court could not cure the inconsistent verdict by modifying it. Castles opposed the motion, arguing that the verdict was not inconsistent, and that the motion should be denied because the court allowed the jury to decide the legal claim, and properly disposed of the equitable claim of unjust enrichment. Castles also argued that the verdict form allowed the result to be inconsistent, and that Johnston did not object to the verdict form. The trial court denied Johnston’s motion.
The Alabama Supreme Court held that the trial court's attempt to reconcile the inconsistency in the jury's verdict was based on mere speculation about the jury's intent. The Court held that the jury failed to follow the trial court's instructions, and Johnston was entitled to a new trial for that reason. Thus, the trial court erred when it denied Johnston's motion for a new trial.
|
|
Civil Procedure / State Constitutional Law
Morrow v. Bentley, et al.
State Representative Johnny Mack Morrow and State Auditor Jim Zeigler brought three declaratory judgment claims against former Governor Bentley and members of his cabinet. Morrow and Zeigler sought to prevent the Governor from disbursing funds the state received from the National Resource Damage Assessment to support the Gulf State Park Project. Bentley and his co-defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Morrow and Zeigler lacked standing both in their individual and official capacities to prosecute their action. Attached to the motion was a complaint filed by a state resident, seeking the same relief in his capacity as a taxpayer. The trial court in that case dismissed the complaint. The defendants argued that the only distinction between the resident’s case and Morrow and Zeigler’s case was that Morrow and Zeigler brought their claims in their official capacities, in addition to bringing claims as taxpaying individuals. The trial court dismissed Morrow and Zeigler’s complaint, citing a lack of standing.
The Alabama Supreme Court held that Morrow and Zeigler waived the issue regarding taxpayer standing by not raising the issue at the trial court level. The Court held that Zeigler did not have standing to bring the claims in his official capacity, because he did not plead an “injury in fact” – that is, he failed to allege a usurpation of his constitutional authority as State Auditor. Similarly, the Court held that Morrow did not have standing in an official capacity because he alleged that his “injury in fact” for standing purposes was an institutional injury to the Legislature as a whole, and Morrow did not obtain authorization to prosecute the claims on behalf of the Legislature. Therefore, the Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court dismissing the claims for lack of standing.
|
|
Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
|
|
"The leading rule for the lawyer, as for the man of every other calling, is diligence. Leave nothing for to-morrow which can be done to-day. Never let your correspondence fall behind." ~Abraham Lincoln
|
|
HUIE APPELLATE PRACTICE GROUP
|
|
No representation is made that the quality of legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
