Michael F. Bolin

Gulf Shores City Board of Education and Kelly Walker v. Eric Mackey, in his official capacity as Superintendent of the Alabama State Board of Education Teddy J. Faust, Jr., in his official capacity as Revenue Commissioner of Baldwin County James E. Ball, Joe Davis III, Billie Jo Underwood, and Charles F. Gruber, in their official capacities as Commissioners of Baldwin County Baldwin County Board of Education Baldwin County Circuit Judge Carmen E. Bosch, in her official capacity as Presiding Judg

Supreme Court of Alabama · 2022-12-22

The case involved a dispute over the apportionment of proceeds from county-wide ad valorem and other taxes levied to fund public education between the Gulf Shores City Board of Education and the Baldwin County Board of Education. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and mandamus relief against state and local officials to enforce the distribution formula set out in statutes such as § 16-13-31(b) and § 40-12-4, which direct that tax collections be allocated based on each local board's calculated costs under the Foundation Program. The Montgomery Circuit Court dismissed the complaint, leading to an appeal that raised questions of statutory interpretation concerning the scope of education-taxing authority and the proper recipients of the resulting revenue.

taxesprocedure

Communications Unlimited Contracting Services, Inc. v. Steve Clanton.

Supreme Court of Alabama · 2022-12-16

This case arose from a business dispute between Communications Unlimited Contracting Services, Inc. (CUI) and Steve Clanton over a 2019 purchase agreement involving Clanton's restoration services company, SCI, after the parties abandoned plans for a joint venture. Following arbitration before JAMS that addressed only monetary claims and awarded damages to each side without resolving ownership interests in SCI, Clanton moved the circuit court to remand the award for clarification on additional issues. The circuit court granted the motion, but the Alabama Supreme Court reversed, holding that the motion was an untimely request for modification under the Federal Arbitration Act and that the award was unambiguous on its face regarding the monetary relief resolved. The court reasoned that the arbitrator had clearly limited the proceedings to monetary claims, with no ambiguity in the amounts, recipients, or scope that would justify remand, and directed the trial court to proceed with confirmation instead.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Ex Parte Alabama Department of Corrections, 1100129 (Ala. 5-13-2011)

Supreme Court of Alabama · 2011-05-13 · cited 4×

This case involved a dispute between the Alabama Department of Corrections and several current or former inmates over the department's authority under § 14-8-6 to withhold up to 40% of work-release earnings for confinement costs, as well as charges for transportation, laundry, toiletries, medical co-pays, and drug testing. The trial court issued rulings on the legality of these practices and certified parts of its judgment as final under Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., even though claims for monetary refunds remained unresolved. The Court of Civil Appeals reviewed the merits, but the Alabama Supreme Court held that the certification was invalid because a judgment addressing only liability in an action seeking damages is not final until damages are determined. The court therefore reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss the appeal for lack of a final judgment, without reaching issues of subject-matter jurisdiction or the underlying statutory interpretations.

criminal lawprocedure

Littrell v. Thrasher

Supreme Court of Alabama · 2011-04-01 · cited 5×

This case arose from a 2005 motor-vehicle accident in which Gilbert Lee Littrell sued Doris Thrasher, as parent of the minor driver, and RLI Insurance Company, the underinsured-motorist carrier for Littrell's employer. RLI exercised its right under Alabama precedent to opt out of active participation in the trial while agreeing to be bound by the verdict on liability and damages. After RLI's counsel, Bert Taylor, later entered an appearance as co-counsel for Thrasher, Littrell moved to bar Taylor's participation and to enforce RLI's opt-out election; the trial court denied the motion. The Supreme Court of Alabama granted Littrell's petition for a writ of mandamus, holding that permitting the insurer's former counsel to represent the defendant would undermine the procedural framework established in Lowe v. Nationwide Insurance Co. and allow the carrier to retain an undisclosed presence in the litigation.

proceduretorts & liability

BRELAND EX REL. BRELAND v. Rich

Supreme Court of Alabama · 2011-03-11 · cited 11×

The case concerned a medical malpractice action brought by Anna Breland, a minor born prematurely, through her mother against ophthalmologist Dr. Leonard Rich and his professional corporation. Anna alleged that Dr. Rich negligently recorded in the NICU's eye-exam book that no further retinopathy of prematurity screening was needed after her June 2003 examination, contrary to his eye form notation, resulting in missed follow-up exams and subsequent injury. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants. On appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court examined whether the plaintiffs' expert testimony created genuine issues of material fact regarding the standard of care, causation, and the role of the eye-exam book versus individual charts or nurse notes in triggering examinations, while addressing related evidentiary and procedural points such as the weight of expert opinions and the statute of limitations.

healthcaretorts & liabilityprocedure

Hutchinson v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama · 2010-12-30 · cited 5×

This case involved attorney Joseph Hutchinson's appeal of a trial court's reduction of his fee declarations for representing an indigent defendant in a capital-murder prosecution that ultimately resolved with a misdemeanor plea. After the original trial judge retired, a successor judge reduced Hutchinson's claimed out-of-court and overhead expenses for both trial and appellate work, prompting Hutchinson to challenge the award on appeal. The Court of Criminal Appeals transferred the matter to the Alabama Supreme Court, which first addressed its own jurisdiction over fee disputes arising from criminal cases. The court held that such orders are appealable to the Court of Criminal Appeals because its statutory jurisdiction over criminal matters necessarily encompasses related post-judgment proceedings like attorney-fee awards under the indigent-defense statutes. The decision relied on precedent distinguishing these claims from ordinary civil actions and on the practical need for a single appellate path in criminal matters.

criminal lawprocedure

Affiliations

Decision record

Michael F. Bolin

Affiliations

Decision record