The case arose when mall owners and managers, sued by a customer who slipped and fell and later suffered paralysis after disk-replacement surgery at a German hospital, filed a third-party complaint against the hospital and its doctors alleging medical malpractice, fraud, and related claims and seeking reimbursement for any damages. The hospital parties moved to dismiss, arguing the mall parties lacked standing, but the trial court denied the motion. The Alabama Supreme Court granted mandamus relief and ordered dismissal, reasoning that Alabama law bars contribution among joint tortfeasors and that Rule 14 third-party practice cannot be used to tender defendants allegedly solely liable to the original plaintiff or to assert claims belonging only to that plaintiff.
This case concerned whether an Alabama trial court retained jurisdiction to enforce and adjust restitution payments in a 1995 assault conviction after the defendant's probation term had expired and he had completed his prison sentence. Kevin Byrd challenged post-2000 restitution collection efforts, leading the Court of Criminal Appeals to issue a writ of mandamus ordering the trial court to vacate its payment orders for lack of jurisdiction. The Alabama Supreme Court granted the trial judge's petition for mandamus, quashing the lower appellate court's writ and holding that the trial court had authority under restitution statutes to modify payment schedules based on the defendant's ability to pay without imposing incarceration. The core reasoning was that restitution obligations survive completion of incarceration and probation, and statutes such as § 15-18-72 and § 12-17-225 et seq. permit ongoing civil enforcement and adjustments by the sentencing court.
This case involved a products liability lawsuit filed in the Bessemer Division of the Jefferson Circuit Court by the administrator of estates of two individuals killed in a car accident in Tuscaloosa County, alleging defects in a 1993 Ford Escort's seatbelt system. The automobile manufacturers and related companies petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to transfer the case to Tuscaloosa Circuit Court under the forum non conveniens statute. The Supreme Court granted the petition in part, ordering the transfer, reasoning that while venue was proper in Bessemer due to the original sale there, the interest of justice required transfer because Tuscaloosa County had substantially stronger connections to the events and parties, and local venue rules do not override the forum non conveniens statute.
This case involves the convictions of Esaw Jackson for three counts of capital murder and two counts of attempted murder, resulting in a death sentence and life imprisonment terms. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals initially affirmed the convictions and sentences. However, the Alabama Supreme Court determined that certain testimony from the victim's mother constituted plain error due to inadmissible opinion and victim-impact elements. Consequently, this court reverses the lower court's judgment and remands the case for a new trial as directed by the Supreme Court.
The case is the State's appeal from a circuit court order granting Larry Reynold Smith's Rule 32 petition for postconviction relief following his 1995 capital murder conviction and death sentence, which had been affirmed on direct appeal. After an evidentiary hearing, the circuit court found that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to conduct any meaningful pretrial investigation, delegating limited tasks to an unqualified investigator, and presenting only a modest defense and sentencing case due to lack of preparation rather than strategy. The court therefore vacated the conviction and ordered a new trial. The appellate opinion recites the underlying facts of the murder investigation, the procedural history of the petition, and the circuit court's specific credibility and factual findings on counsel's performance.
This case involves James Allen Harrison, Jr.'s Rule 32, Ala.R.Crim.P., petition for post-conviction relief, which the circuit court summarily denied. This Court initially affirmed the denial in an unpublished memorandum, but the Alabama Supreme Court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the merits of Harrison's juror-misconduct claims and a determination whether he is entitled to a new trial. In accordance with that directive, this Court remands the case to the Russell Circuit Court for further proceedings, with directions to file a return within 42 days.