The case involved the Town of Pine Hill suing 3M Company and other defendants for allegedly contaminating the town's drinking water supply with PFAS chemicals released from upstream industrial mills, seeking damages and injunctive relief for remediation costs. After 3M removed the action to federal district court under the federal-officer removal statute and the court remanded it to state court, with 3M appealing the remand to the Eleventh Circuit, the Wilcox Circuit Court issued an order asserting jurisdiction and directing the parties to proceed. The Alabama Supreme Court granted the defendants' petition for a writ of prohibition, directing the circuit court to vacate its order and stay further proceedings pending resolution of the federal appeal. The court reasoned that under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), a remand order in a federal-officer removal case is treated as an appealable final judgment, allowing the federal district court to retain jurisdiction to reconsider or stay it despite transmission to state court.
environmentprocedurebusiness & regulatoryfederal power
The case involved a dispute over whether Derrick Roberts, a teacher formerly employed by the Alabama Department of Youth Services (DYS), had attained tenure under the Students First Act before his employment was non-renewed in 2023. Roberts contended his employment began on September 17, 2019, based on an email from DYS officials, which would have made him tenured and entitled to due-process protections, while the DYS defendants maintained the effective hire date was October 7, 2019, when Roberts reported for training and benefits began. The trial court ruled for Roberts, concluding he was tenured under the Act or by equitable estoppel. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed, holding that Roberts's employment started after the October 1 cutoff for tenure purposes under the Act and that estoppel did not apply because DYS made no misrepresentations and Roberts was not ignorant of the statutory requirements.
This case involves John Michael Perryman II's petition to the Supreme Court of Alabama for a writ of certiorari to review a decision by the Court of Criminal Appeals in his criminal case from the Montgomery 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 Bryan, Mendheim, and McCool concurring. No reasoning or analysis of the underlying issues was provided in the judgment.
The case involves Clayton Antwain Shanklin's petition to the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari seeking review of a Court of Criminal Appeals decision in his criminal proceedings from the Jefferson Circuit Court. The Supreme Court denied the petition for the writ. No opinion was issued with the denial, and the Chief Justice along with several associate justices concurred in the result.
The case involves Cedric Cortez Williams petitioning the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review a decision by the Court of Criminal Appeals in his criminal case against the State of Alabama, which originated in the Mobile Circuit Court under case number CC-19-4956. The Supreme Court denied the petition without issuing an opinion, with Chief Justice Stewart and Justices Bryan, Mendheim, and McCool concurring in the denial. As a result, the lower court's ruling remains in effect, and the high court declined to grant further review of the matter.
This case concerns a petition for a writ of mandamus filed in the Alabama Supreme Court by Michael Ellis Wiggins and Rebecca Wiggins Phillips. The petition sought review of an underlying action in the Marshall Circuit Court against the estate of Robin Dawn Wiggins. The Supreme Court denied the petition for mandamus. All participating justices concurred in the denial order, which contained no additional explanation or analysis.
The case involved Felicia Thrift and Jeffery Landrum petitioning the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review a decision by the Court of Civil Appeals in their lawsuit against Charles Sparks, originally filed in the Clay Circuit Court. The Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari without issuing an opinion. This decision means the lower court's ruling stands, as the high court declined to grant further review.
This case involved an appeal by Steven Mark Hayden from a judgment of the Elmore Circuit Court in a dispute with Western Steel, Inc. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's decision. The court did so without issuing a written opinion, relying on Rule 53(a)(1) and (a)(2)(F) of the Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure, which permit affirmance in certain circumstances without further elaboration. Several justices concurred in the result, while others recused themselves from the case.
The case involves Mario Dion Woodward'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 matter against the State of Alabama, which originated in the Montgomery Circuit Court. The Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari and issued no opinion on the matter. Justices Shaw, Stewart, Bryan, Sellers, Mendheim, Cook, and McCool concurred in the denial, while Justice Wise recused herself. As a result, the ruling of the Court of Criminal Appeals remains in effect without further review by the state's highest court.
The case concerned Daniel J. Gilley's petition to the Alabama Supreme Court seeking review of a decision by the Court of Criminal Appeals in his criminal prosecution by the State of Alabama, which originated in the Dale Circuit Court. The Supreme Court of Alabama denied the petition for a writ of certiorari. No opinion was issued explaining the denial, and all participating justices concurred in the result, leaving the lower court's ruling undisturbed.
This case involves a petition by Jerry Lendon Whitten to the Supreme Court of Alabama for a writ of certiorari seeking review of a decision by the Court of Criminal Appeals in his case against the State of Alabama, originating from the Talladega Circuit Court. The Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari. No opinion was issued explaining the decision, and several justices concurred in the denial.
This case was an appeal to the Alabama Supreme Court by Patricia Lynn Danley Weigart from a judgment of the Lauderdale Circuit Court in a dispute against Ronald Morton, Steven Davis, Anita Davis, Derek Wade Boatwright, Kyle Gean, Ashley Gean, and GCH Properties, LLC. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's decision. The affirmance was issued without an accompanying opinion pursuant to Rule 53(a)(1) and (a)(2)(F) of the Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure. Chief Justice Stewart and Justices Bryan, Mendheim, and McCool concurred in the result.
The case involved Justin Shane Brown filing a petition 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 Coffee Circuit Court. The Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari. No opinion was issued with the denial. Multiple justices, including Chief Justice Stewart and Justices Bryan, Mendheim, and McCool, concurred in the result.
The case concerned a petition by Judy A. Parker to the Supreme Court of Alabama for a writ of certiorari seeking review of a decision by the Court of Civil Appeals in her lawsuit against Jay V. Gordon and Dana Gordon, which had been filed in the Mobile Circuit Court. The Supreme Court denied the petition for the writ of certiorari. The court issued no opinion in support of its decision, which was entered on November 14, 2025, with Justice Shaw authoring the entry and several other justices concurring.
The case involved a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by C.B., Jr. to the Alabama Supreme Court seeking review of a decision by the Court of Criminal Appeals in a criminal prosecution from the Montgomery Circuit Court. The Supreme Court denied the petition without issuing an opinion. Justice Shaw authored the denial, with Chief Justice Stewart and Justices Bryan, Mendheim, and McCool concurring. This leaves the Court of Criminal Appeals' ruling in place as the final disposition in the matter.
The case involved a dispute between Ian Boles and the City of Orange Beach regarding the City's requirement that builders submit financial information about subcontractors before conducting inspections for a building permit. Boles sought a declaratory judgment that the City lacked authority to require this information, an order for inspections, and damages for delays. After inspections were completed without the form and a prior reversal of the damages award on immunity grounds, the Alabama Supreme Court held that no justiciable controversy remained upon remand, rendering the trial court's subsequent declaratory judgment void due to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and remanded for dismissal.
The case involved Mobile Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLC, and its administrator appealing the Mobile Circuit Court's denial of their motion to compel arbitration of a wrongful-death claim filed by Jeanne Sliman as personal representative of the estate of Ernest Sliman, a former resident. The Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the trial court's order and remanded for further proceedings. The court held that the optional arbitration agreement, signed by Jeanne as Ernest's authorized representative on May 18, 2023, was enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act because it covered disputes arising from care at the facility and bound the estate, heirs, and personal representative. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate Ernest's incapacity due to dementia at the exact time of signing, as medical records showed only fluctuating cognition without an acute condition that would render him unable to authorize the agreement.
This case involved J.R., Sr. seeking review by the Alabama Supreme Court of a decision by the Court of Civil Appeals in a matter against the Tuscaloosa County Department of Human Resources that originated in the Tuscaloosa Juvenile Court. The underlying dispute concerned actions by the Department of Human Resources in a juvenile proceeding. The Supreme Court of Alabama denied the petition for a writ of certiorari. The court's order provided no opinion or further explanation for the denial.
The case involved J.R., Sr. petitioning the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review a decision by the Court of Civil Appeals in a matter against the Tuscaloosa County Department of Human Resources originating from the Tuscaloosa Juvenile Court. The Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari without issuing an opinion. As a result, the lower court's decision stands, with no further review granted by the state's highest court.
The case involved J.R., Sr. seeking review by the Alabama Supreme Court of a Court of Civil Appeals decision in a dispute against the Tuscaloosa County Department of Human Resources that originated in the Tuscaloosa Juvenile Court. The Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari and issued no opinion on the matter. As a result, the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals stands without further review by the state's highest court.