John William Wilder, Jr. sued the City of Hoover, its mayor, city administrator, and the separately incorporated Public Park and Recreation Board after being passed over for appointment as the City's Park and Recreation Director in 2021, alleging that the city defendants had usurped the Board's autonomy by not allowing the Board to hire him for the role. The circuit court dismissed all claims, and the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that Wilder lacked standing to sue the Board because he alleged no wrongdoing by it and failed to state a valid claim against the city defendants, as he had fundamentally confused two distinct positions: the City's Park and Recreation Director (appointed by the mayor under Ala. Code 1975, § 11-43-81) and the Board's separate director of Parks and Recreation (governed by its own bylaws and Ala. Code 1975, § 11-60-8).
The case involved TAMKO Building Products appealing a circuit court's denial of its motion to compel arbitration in a lawsuit brought by Mike and Lisa Patterson over allegedly defective roofing shingles purchased with a home. The shingles came with a transferable warranty that included a broad arbitration clause requiring all claims related to the shingles or warranty to be resolved by binding arbitration and expressly delegating questions of the clause's applicability and enforceability to the arbitrator. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed the denial and remanded with instructions to grant the motion, reasoning that the clause clearly and unmistakably delegated threshold arbitrability issues to an arbitrator under established precedent, so that even disputes involving nonsignatories must first go to arbitration.
Julie Jones sued William Welch over a dispute arising from Welch's construction of a fence for her, and after Welch and his attorney failed to appear at the scheduled trial, the circuit court entered a default judgment against him for over $64,000. Welch moved to reinstate the case, citing his attorney's calendaring error, but the circuit court denied the motion. On appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the denial, holding that Welch's initial motion failed to address the required Kirtland factors for setting aside a default judgment—particularly the strength of his defense and prejudice to Jones—and provided insufficient evidence or argument on his own culpability. The court dismissed as premature the portion of the appeal concerning Welch's later, unruled-upon verified Rule 60(b) motion seeking relief from the judgment. The decision rests on the principle that the moving party bears the burden of demonstrating grounds to set aside a default under established standards.
Jackie Walter sued the owner of a shopping center and a construction company after tripping and falling on uneven concrete in a construction zone outside a Staples store in Huntsville, Alabama, in May 2021. Her claims included negligence, wantonness, and premises liability. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, and the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that the uneven concrete was an open and obvious hazard as a matter of law, given the presence of barricades, caution tape, warning signs, and fluorescent paint marking the area.
The case involves Xavier Marqice Thompson, who filed a petition for a writ of certiorari asking the Alabama Supreme Court to review a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals arising from a criminal proceeding in Jefferson Circuit Court. The Supreme Court denied the petition without issuing an opinion. The denial was entered on January 9, 2026, with Chief Justice Stewart and Justices Wise, Sellers, and Cook concurring.
The case concerned Timothy Keith Clark's petition to the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari seeking review of a decision by the Court of Criminal Appeals in a criminal matter from the Butler Circuit Court. The Supreme Court denied the petition. No opinion was issued, so the court provided no explanation of its reasoning for the denial.
The case concerned Murice Devell Sashington's petition to the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari seeking review of a decision by the Court of Criminal Appeals in his criminal prosecution that originated in the Mobile Circuit Court. The petition asked the Supreme Court to examine the lower appellate ruling. The Supreme Court denied the writ of certiorari and issued no opinion on the matter. All participating justices concurred in the denial.
The case involves Marcus Dewayne Pressley seeking review by the Alabama Supreme Court of a decision from the Court of Criminal Appeals in his criminal proceedings against the State of Alabama, which originated in the Shelby Circuit Court. The petition requested a writ of certiorari to examine the lower appellate court's ruling. The Supreme Court denied the writ without issuing an opinion, and the justices concurred in that denial. No further reasoning or analysis of the underlying claims was provided in the judgment.
This case involved Gregory Renard Wynn, who had been convicted in Calhoun Circuit Court and appealed to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. After losing there, Wynn petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review the lower appellate decision. The Supreme Court denied the petition on January 9, 2026, without issuing an opinion, with Chief Justice Stewart and Justices Wise, Sellers, and Cook concurring. Because no opinion was released, the court provided no explicit reasoning for the denial, which leaves the Court of Criminal Appeals' ruling undisturbed.
This case concerns a petition by Fredrich Earl Williams, Jr., asking the Alabama Supreme Court to review a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals arising from his criminal proceedings in Jefferson Circuit Court. The Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari. The denial was issued without an accompanying opinion, with Chief Justice Stewart and Justices Parker, Wise, Sellers, and Cook all concurring in the result.
This case involved Damian L. Jackson's petition to the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari seeking review of a decision by the Court of Criminal Appeals in his underlying criminal proceedings from the Shelby Circuit Court (cases CC-16-802.60, CC-16-803.60, and CC-16-804.60). The petition challenged the lower appellate court's ruling in Jackson v. State of Alabama. The Supreme Court of Alabama denied the writ of certiorari on January 9, 2026, without issuing an opinion, with Chief Justice Stewart and Justices Wise, Sellers, and Cook concurring. No further reasoning or analysis was provided in the court's judgment.
The case involved a petition by D.S. to the Alabama Supreme Court seeking review of a decision by the Court of Civil Appeals in a matter originating from the Calhoun Juvenile Court between D.S. and L.M. The Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari without issuing an opinion. This means the lower court's decision stands, as the high court chose not to hear the case.
The case involved Curtis Lebarron Bennett, Jr., who filed a petition for a writ of certiorari asking the Alabama Supreme Court to review a decision by the Court of Criminal Appeals in multiple criminal cases originating from the Mobile Circuit Court. The underlying proceedings concerned various criminal charges against Bennett. The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari and issued no opinion on the matter, with the Chief Justice and four associate justices concurring in the denial. As a result, the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals stands without further review by the state's highest court.
The case involves Brittany Erin Nicole Head's petition to the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari seeking review of a decision by the Court of Criminal Appeals in her criminal prosecution by the State of Alabama, which originated in the Covington Circuit Court. The Supreme Court considered the petition and entered a judgment denying the writ. No opinion was issued explaining the denial. The Chief Justice and all participating associate justices concurred in the result.
Sarah E. Martin sued multiple parties after suffering injuries in a 2020 car accident with a tractor-trailer driven by an employee of Al-Amin Brothers Transportation, LLC. After settling with the original defendants, she amended her complaint to add PEI Ohio, Inc. and Premium Transportation Group, Inc. as defendants, asserting negligence and related claims; the corporations moved to enforce the settlement release against them and sought attorney fees. The trial court granted the motion to enforce the settlement, dismissed the claims, awarded fees, and certified the orders as final under Rule 54(b) while allowing Martin to amend further. The Alabama Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, reasoning that the Rule 54(b) certification was improper because pending claims involved the same parties and issues that could moot or alter the appealed matters, favoring avoidance of piecemeal litigation.
In this case, Sarah E. Martin appealed two orders from the Jefferson Circuit Court in a personal injury action stemming from a 2020 car accident: one enforcing a settlement agreement with PEI Ohio, Inc. and Premium Transportation Group, Inc. (after she added them as defendants post-settlement with the original parties), and another directing her to pay attorney fees. The Supreme Court of Alabama dismissed both appeals, concluding that the trial court had improperly certified the orders as final under Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P. The core reasoning was that the certification risked piecemeal litigation, since Martin's remaining claims involved the same parties, could produce findings that moot key issues on appeal, and might affect related obligations such as fees.
This case is an appeal by James D. Gaston d/b/a Die-Mantic Tool from a Madison Circuit Court judgment against Ron Hardy and Hardy Machinery, Inc. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's decision in full. The court issued no opinion on the merits and cited Alabama Rule of Appellate Procedure 53(a)(1) and (a)(2)(F) as the basis for its disposition. Justices Shaw, Bryan, Mendheim, and Mitchell concurred.
The case involved a dispute between Russell County and two municipalities, Phenix City and Hurtsboro, over the distribution of proceeds from gasoline excise taxes. The county argued that the Alabama Terminal Excise Tax Act (ATETA) of 2012 repealed a 1969 local law requiring the county to allocate 10 percent of its tax share to municipalities based on population. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the municipalities, declaring that the local law remained in effect. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that the ATETA explicitly preserved existing local legislation regarding the distribution of such tax proceeds.
This case involved a data-breach class action filed by Shymikka Griggs, a former employee of NHS Management, LLC, a firm providing administrative services to nursing homes and rehabilitation facilities. Griggs alleged that a 2021 cyberattack exposed her and others' personal and health information, leading to risks of identity theft, spam calls, credit issues, and related harms; she asserted claims including negligence, breach of contract, invasion of privacy, and violations of the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The Jefferson Circuit Court dismissed the complaint, and the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Griggs failed to sufficiently plead her claims under Alabama's pleading standards. The majority opinion emphasized that allegations of injury were speculative and did not meet requirements for standing or stating a viable cause of action, while concurrences noted waiver of arguments regarding the existence of a legal duty in negligence. The decision rested on procedural and substantive pleading deficiencies rather than reaching the merits of data-breach liability.
William Martin Holt filed a petition for a writ of certiorari asking the Alabama Supreme Court to review a decision by the Court of Criminal Appeals in his criminal case against the State of Alabama, which had originated in the Jackson Circuit Court. The Supreme Court considered the petition but denied it without issuing an opinion. All participating justices concurred in the denial of the writ.