Lawyer Profile
Representative Cases

Among the published decisions in which Mr. Kelly's client prevailed on appeal are the following:

Health Care Authority of the City of Huntsville d.b.a. Huntsville Hospital v. Holly, 925 So.2d 160 (Ala. 2005): The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed an order granting a new trial after the jury awarded $2 million in damages to the plaintiff in this medical malpractice case. The supreme court ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial based on a juror's failure to properly respond to voir dire questions concerning past disputes with the defendant hospital.

Wilson v. Athens-Limestone Hospital, 894 So.2d 630 (Ala. 2004): This was a medical malpractice action in which the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed an order granting the defendant hospital's motion for judgment as a matter of law. At trial, the plaintiff's medical expert testified that a pediatrician employed by the hospital had a duty to intervene in the care provided by an emergency physician to a patient in the emergency room. Resolving an issue of first impression in Alabama, the supreme court ruled that there was no duty to intervene in the care provided by another physician.

Ex parte Athens-Limestone Hospital, 858 So.2d 960 (Ala. 2003): In this medical malpractice case, a hospital filed a third-party claim for indemnity against a physician whose actions were the basis for a vicarious-liability claim asserted against the hospital. The trial court permitted the third-party claim, but severed the indemnity claim from the plaintiff's medical malpractice claim against the hospital. The Alabama Supreme Court granted the hospital's petition for a writ of mandamus and directed the trial court to vacate its order severing the indemnity claim. The court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion in severing the claims, because trying the claims together would not unduly complicate the case.

Tuck v. Health Care Authority of the City of Huntsville d.b.a. Huntsville Hospital, 851 So.2d 498 (Ala. 2002): This was a medical malpractice case in which the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order granting the defendant hospital's motion for a judgment as a matter of law. The motion was granted on the ground that the plaintiff failed to present the testimony of a qualified expert to establish that the hospital breached the standard of care. The supreme court rejected the plaintiff's argument that expert testimony was not required in a case involving the use of restraints on a hospital patient. The court also concluded that the trial court correctly ruled that the plaintiff's proffered expert did not meet the statutory qualifications for a similarly situated health-care provider, that the trial court was not required to allow the expert to testify at trial merely because the court had previously denied a motion to strike the expert's testimony at the summary-judgment stage, that the testimony of the hospital's own experts did not establish a breach of the standard of care, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in preventing the plaintiff from calling an expert who was not disclosed in the plaintiff's answers to the hospital's interrogatories.

Crowl v. Kayo Oil Company, 848 So.2d 930 (Ala. 2002): This was a premises-liability case in which the trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of the defendant on the grounds that the plaintiff's claim was barred by the statute of limitations because the plaintiff did not make valid use of fictitious-party pleading. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the summary judgment, holding that the plaintiff did not use due diligence in discovering the defendant's identity, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant a continuance to permit the plaintiff to conduct discovery to oppose the motion for summary judgment.

Water and Wastewater Board of the City of Madison v. Anderson, 850 So.2d 1230 (Ala. 2002): In this case, the Alabama Supreme Court reversed the trial court's order directing a city water board to provide water service to property owned by the plaintiff. The water board adopted a policy under which water service would be made available to property located outside the city limits only if the landowner filed a petition to have the property annexed into the city. The plaintiff, who owned a tract of land located outside the city, contended that it was improper for the water board to condition water service on annexation, and the trial court issued a writ of mandamus requiring the water board to serve the plaintiff's property. In reversing that order, the supreme court held that the water board had established a reasonable rationale for the annexation requirement, and the plaintiff therefore did not have a clear legal right to obtain water service. The court also concluded that mandamus relief was unavailable because the plaintiff could have filed a declaratory judgment action.

Ex parte Maple Chase Company, 840 So.2d 147 (Ala. 2002): In this case, the Alabama Supreme Court granted a petition for mandamus and directed the trial court to vacate an order requiring the defendant to pay the plaintiff's travel expenses and translation costs related to discovery. In resolving a question of first impression about the proper allocation of the costs of translating foreign documents produced in discovery, the court adopted the rule that each party must bear the special costs related to its own discovery requests.

Davis v. J. F. Drake State Technical College, 854 So.2d 1151 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002): The plaintiff in this case was a college employee who was given a notice of termination during his probationary period, but who continued to work at the college pursuant to a written employment contract for several months after the probationary period expired. The plaintiff argued that he became a non-probationary employee under the terms of the Alabama Fair Dismissal Act (FDA), Ala. Code  36-26-100 et seq. (1975) because he continued to work after the probationary period expired, and that the college had violated the FDA by terminating him without a hearing. The plaintiff also argued that he was entitled to a hearing under the college's own policy manual, because he was terminated within the period of a contract. Finally, the plaintiff argued that his termination was improper because the college had failed to evaluate his performance in accordance with the FDA and the college's own policies. The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals rejected each of these arguments in affirming a summary judgment entered in favor of the college and its president. The court held that the plaintiff did not become a non-probationary employee since he received the required notice of termination during his probationary period. The court also held that the plaintiff was not terminated within the period of a contract when he was allowed to complete the contract term, that the plaintiff was not entitled to further evaluations under the FDA, and that the college policy concerning evaluations did not create a contractual obligation to provide further evaluations.

Ex parte Showers, 812 So.2d 277 (Ala. 2001): The Alabama Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's petition for a writ of mandamus in this medical malpractice action, holding that the writ could not be used to obtain review of a partial summary judgment or to require the trial court to certify the judgment as final or issue the statement required for a permissive appeal.

Continental Grain Company. v. Maier, 842 So.2d 670 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001): In this case, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court's order requiring an employer to pay for surgery to be performed on an employee who was injured on the job. The surgeon was not an authorized treating physician, but the trial court ruled that the employer was required to pay for the surgery because it had neglected or refused to provide necessary medical care. In reversing the order, the Court of Civil Appeals concluded that the employer had met all of its obligations under the Workers' Compensation Act and that no grounds existed for requiring the employer to pay for unauthorized medical treatment.

Mutual Assurance Inc. v. Chancey, 781 So.2d 172 (Ala. 2000): The Alabama Supreme Court in this case held that a liability insurer was not entitled to intervene in a suit against its insured physician for the purpose of requesting interrogatories or special verdict forms to allow it to ascertain the basis for the jury's verdict.

Wells v. Storey, 792 So.2d 1034 (Ala. 1999): In this medical malpractice case, the Alabama Supreme Court addressed a question of first impression in Alabama in holding that nurses and hospitals do not have an independent duty to obtained the informed consent of a patient.

Ex parte Martin, 733 So.2d 392 (Ala. 1999): In this action against a plant manager arising out of the deaths of three workers in an explosion, the Alabama Supreme Court granted the defendant's petition for certiorari and reversed the decision of the Court of Civil Appeals, holding that the defendant was entitled to a summary judgment because the plaintiffs failed to present evidence establishing that the defendant was substantially certain that injuries would follow from his actions.

Saunders v. North Alabama Neurological, P.A., 770 So.2d 612 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999): In this medical malpractice action, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals held that the plaintiffs' claims were barred by the doctrine of judicial estoppel because the plaintiffs obtained a bankruptcy discharge without disclosing the existence of their claims, even though they knew or should have known they had potential claims to be asserted against the defendants.

Gipson v. Younes, 724 So.2d 530 (Ala. Civ. App. 1998): The Court of Civil Appeals answered a question of first impression in this medical malpractice case, holding that the trial court did not err in excluding evidence that the defendant physician had twice failed the medical board certification exams, even though the physician testified as an expert in his own behalf. The court also held that the jury's verdict in the defendant's favor could not be reversed due to any error in admitting into evidence the workers' compensation complaint the plaintiff filed against her employer, because the admission of evidence that goes only to the issue of damages cannot provide a basis for disturbing a verdict absolving the defendant from liability.

Ex parte Dunlop Tire Corporation, 706 So.2d 729 (Ala. 1997): The Alabama Supreme Court decided a question of first impression in this workers' compensation case, holding that the employer was entitled to set off disability plan benefits paid to injured employees against the amount of their workers' compensation awards, regardless of whether the disability benefits were fringe benefits or benefits provided pursuant to a union-negotiated contract.

Alexander v. Pace Industries, Inc., 710 So.2d 450 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997): In this retaliatory discharge action, the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed a summary judgment in favor of the employer on the grounds that the plaintiff could not prove that she was willing and able to return to work.

Crawford v. Sundback, 678 So.2d 1057 (Ala. 1996): In this action against co-employees arising out of the deaths of three workers in an on-the-job accident, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed a summary judgment in favor of several co-employees on the grounds that the plaintiffs did not exercise due diligence in adding the defendants to the lawsuit.

Smith v. Dunlop Tire Corp., 663 So.2d 914 (Ala. 1995): In this retaliatory discharge action, the Alabama Supreme Court answered a question of first impression by holding that an employer may lawfully terminate an employee for missing work due to an on-the-job injury, where the termination was pursuant to a "no fault" absence policy in a collective bargaining agreement under which absences occasioned by occupational accidents were not excused.

Peek v. State Auto Mutual Ins. Co., 661 So.2d 737 (Ala. 1995): After hearing oral argument, the Alabama Supreme Court answered a question of first impression in this case by declining to recognize an independent tort cause of action for spoliation of evidence.

Mann v. Health Care Authority of the City of Huntsville, 653 So.2d 941 (Ala. 1995): In this medical malpractice action, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed a directed verdict in favor of the defendant hospital on claims for negligent training and supervision of a nurse, concluding that the jury's verdict in favor of the nurse meant that there could be no valid claim against the hospital.

Steiger v. Huntsville City Bd. of Educ., 653 So.2d 975 (Ala. 1995): In affirming a summary judgment entered in favor a city school board, the Alabama Supreme Court held in this case that the board could not be held liable in contract or in tort for injuries received by a teacher who was assaulted at school by a third party.

Milligan v. Albertville City Bd. of Educ., 661 So.2d 254 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995): In this case, the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed a judgment in favor of a board of education on a former employee's claims that her termination violated her rights to freedom of speech and association.

Johnson v. Huntsville Hospital, 660 So.2d 1017 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995): The Court of Civil Appeals in this case affirmed a summary judgment in favor of a hospital on a claim for services rendered to a patient, holding that the hospital was entitled to the amount charged for services rendered, even though no statutory hospital lien arose.

City of Huntsville v. City of Madison, 24 F.3d 169 (11th Cir. 1994): This declaratory judgment action arose out of a dispute concerning a city's obligation to make tax equivalent payments to other municipalities and counties to which the city supplied electricity purchased from the Tennessee Valley Authority. The Eleventh Circuit held that there was no federal question jurisdiction because, even though the dispute centered on a contract between the city and TVA that would require the court to interpret the federal TVA Act, this would not confer federal question jurisdiction due to the fact that the federal statute does not provide for a private remedy.

Ex parte Mayo, 652 So.2d 201 (Ala. 1994): This was a criminal matter in which Mr. Kelly represented a city in its prosecution of a defendant for DUI. After hearing oral argument, the Alabama Supreme Court found that the State Department of Forensic Sciences had not adopted adequate rules for administering chemical breath alcohol tests, but affirmed the DUI conviction on the grounds that the prosecution nonetheless had established a sufficient predicate for admission of the defendant's test result under traditional evidentiary rules for admitting scientific test results.

Saccuzzo v. Krystal Co., 646 So.2d 595 (Ala. 1994): The Alabama Supreme Court in this case held that a restaurant that had been the scene of substantial criminal activity could not be held liable for the wrongful death of an individual who was standing on the premises of an adjacent business when shot by a person standing in the parking lot of the restaurant.

Miller v. Alabama Central Credit Union, 662 So.2d 270 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994): In this action against a credit union based on alleged wrongful conduct in allowing property to be sold at a liquidation auction, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals affirmed a summary judgment on claims for conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraud.

Robinson v. Huntsville Hospital, 647 So.2d 766 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994): In this workers' compensation case, the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed a judgment in the employer's favor on the grounds that the trial court could have properly concluded that the employee was not injured on the job.

Harrington v. Guaranty National Ins. Co., 628 So.2d 323 (Ala. 1993): The Alabama Supreme Court answered a question of first impression in this case by holding that an insurer could not be held liable for bad faith where the insurer negligently made a mistake of law regarding the applicability of a policy exclusion.

Hurst v. Nichols Research Corp., 621 So.2d 964 (Ala. 1993): In this case in which a former corporate officer claimed that he had not been given stock options that allegedly had been promised in the course of negotiations related to his employment contract, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed a summary judgment entered in favor of the corporation and its CEO on the plaintiff's claims for fraud and breach of contract.

Irons v. Service Merchandise Co., Inc., 611 So.2d 294 (Ala. 1992): In affirming a summary judgment entered in favor of the defendant employer, the Alabama Supreme Court adopted the standards for determining whether a constructive discharge occurred in a retaliatory discharge action brought pursuant to Alabama's Workers' Compensation Act.

Cases in which the appellate court published no opinion in ruling entirely in favor of Mr. Kelly's clients include—

Burgess v. City of Guntersville, Ala. Sup. Ct. Case No. 1040393 (Ala. 2006): This case involved questions of municipal immunity and other issues arising out of claims for negligent installation and inspection of a sewer service line. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed a summary judgment entered in the city's favor.

Towers v. City of Huntsville, 926 So.2d 381 (Ala. 2005): This case involved claims against a mayor and members of a city council for breach of an employment contract, and claims against the council members for negligent supervision of city employees charged with implementation of a city policy manual. The defendants moved for a dismissal on various grounds, including the ground that Alabama does not recognize a negligent supervision cause of action against individual supervisory employees. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed an order granting the motion to dismiss.

Milton v. ECG, Inc., Ala. Civ. App. Case No. 2030743 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005): This was a workers' compensation case in which the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals affirmed a judgment denying benefits because of the employee's failure to prove medical causation or a permanent impairment.

Brandon v. Crestwood Health Care, LP, 916 So.2d 634 (Ala. 2004): This was a medical malpractice case in which the plaintiff appealed from a jury verdict entered in the defendants' favor, arguing that the trial court gave erroneous jury instructions on the issue of proximate cause. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order denying a new trial.

James v. City of Russellville, 87 Fed. Appx. 711 (11th Cir. 2003): After hearing oral argument, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed an order dismissing substantive due-process and equal-protection claims arising out of a zoning dispute.

Rucker v. Water & Wastewater Board of City of Madison, 898 So.2d 927 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003): In this case, the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed a summary judgment on claims for declaratory relief concerning the validity of a water board policy that made annexation into the city a condition for obtaining water service.

Terry v. Omni-Cube, LLC, 898 So.2d 925 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003): This was a workers' compensation case in which the trial court found that the employee failed to meet her burden of proving medical causation and also failed to prove that the reported on-the-job accident resulted in a permanent impairment. The appellate court affirmed the judgment for the employer.

Anderson v. Water & Wastewater Board of City of Madison, 898 So.2d 928 (Ala. 2003): The trial court in this case dismissed claims for declaratory relief concerning the validity of a water board service policy, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court's order.

Wilson v. Athens-Limestone Hospital, Ala. Sup. Ct. Case No. 1020262 (Ala. 2003): This was a medical-malpractice case in which the trial court barred the plaintiff from using a medical expert because of the plaintiff's repeated failure to comply with pre-trial orders requiring her to designate experts and make them available for deposition. The trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of the defendant hospital because of the absence of expert testimony in support of the plaintiff's claim. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the judgment.

Parker v. Lyle, Ala. Sup. Ct. Case No. 1010615 (Ala. 2002): This was a co-employee case in which the plaintiff claimed that he sustained injuries to his lungs and skin through using a cleaning agent in the course of his job. The trial court entered a summary judgment on willful-conduct claims asserted against a supervisor, and the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the judgment.

Nunnally v. Colonial Bank, Ala. Sup. Ct. Case No. 1010071 (Ala. 2002): The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed a summary judgment in favor of the defendant bank in this case, which involved questions concerning whether the plaintiff's common-law claim for negligence was displaced by the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and whether the bank could be liable under the UCC for paying checks drawn on non-sufficient funds and checks with forged endorsements or signatures.

White v. The Clinic for Women, Ala. Sup. Ct. Case No. 1001849 (Ala. 2002): This medical malpractice case presented a question whether the plaintiff suffered a legal injury more than 4 years before her suit was filed, which would mean that the claim was barred by the statute of repose applicable to medical malpractice claims. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed a summary judgment in the defendants' favor.

Long v. Norandal USA, Inc., Ala. Ct. Civ. App. Case No. 2010405 (2002): This was a workers' compensation case in which the employee sought compensation for a disability resulting from bipolar disorder. The trial court concluded that the employee failed to prove that an on-the-job injury contributed to cause the disorder, and the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court's finding.

Rowe v. City of Madison, 272 F.3d 1121 (11th Cir. 2001): In this case, the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a summary judgment in the employer's favor on a retaliation claim asserted under the Americans With Disabilities Act. The case presented questions whether alleged harassment of the plaintiff constituted an adverse employment action, and whether the plaintiff had a good faith, reasonable belief that his diabetes made him disabled under the ADA.

Thurmond v. City of Huntsville, 31 Fed. Appx. 200 (11th Cir. 2001): After hearing oral argument, the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a summary judgment in favor of a city on 42 U.S.C.§ 1983 excessive-force claims arising out of police officers' actions in response to a riot during labor unrest.

Northcutt v. City of Madison Board of Education, 829 So.2d 199 (Ala. 2001): The Alabama Supreme Court in this case affirmed a summary judgment in favor of a city school board on a declaratory judgment claim and a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 arising out of the board's refusal to admit a student due to failure to meet the residency requirements.

Blake v. Lloyd Noland Hospital, 824 So.2d 85 (Ala. 2001): The trial court in this medical malpractice case entered a summary judgment in favor of a physician on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to present admissible, legally sufficient expert testimony to support her claim, and the supreme court affirmed the judgment on appeal.

Pirayeh v. Huntsville Hospital, Ala. Sup. Ct. Case No. 1001450 (Ala. 2001): The Alabama Supreme Court in this medical malpractice action rejected an argument that the trial judge was required to recuse himself, and affirmed a summary judgment in the hospital's favor.

Kelley v. SCI Systems, Inc., Ala. Civ. App. Case. No. 2000159 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001): The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed a judgment in the employer's favor in this workers' compensation case presenting questions whether the employee met her burden of proving medical causation, and her burden of proving that an on-the-job accident caused a permanent impairment.

Ex parte Bronze Centers, Ala. Ct. Civ. App. Case No. 200073 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001): The Court of Civil Appeals in this case granted a petition for mandamus directing the trial court to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Brannum v. OWG, Inc. d/b/a Papa John's Pizza, Ala. Ct. Civ. App. Case No. 2000205 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001): The trial court in this case entered a summary judgment in the defendant employer's favor on claims for negligent or wanton hiring or training, on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to establish that the employee was an incompetent driver or that his alleged incompetency caused the subject car accident. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Travis v. AAF-McQuay, Inc., 795 So.2d 853 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000): In this workers' compensation action, the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed a judgment entered in favor of the employer on the grounds that the employee's claim was barred by the statute of limitations because it was filed more than 2 years after the date of his last exposure to the chemical that allegedly caused his injury.

Green v. SCI Systems, Inc., 790 So.2d 372 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000): The trial court entered a summary judgment in the employer's favor in this retaliatory discharge action, on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to present substantial evidence that she was terminated because she filed a workers' compensation claim, rather than because she violated the employer's absenteeism policy. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the judgment.

K-Mart Corp. v. U.S. Fire Insurance Company, 787 So.2d 721 (Ala. 2000): In this insurance coverage dispute centering on whether an accident occurred in a common area of a store, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed a judgment in favor of the insurance company.

Allen v. Lazenby, 759 So.2d 578 (Ala. 1999): The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed a directed verdict in favor of the defendant physician in this medical malpractice case, in which the trial court ruled that the plaintiff would not be allowed to introduce evidence at trial concerning alleged acts or omissions that were not alleged in the complaint or in a pretrial order entered at least 90 days before trial.

Ramirez v. Wayne Poultry, 781 So.2d 1026 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999): The trial court in this case denied workers' compensation benefits to the employee on the grounds that she failed to meet her burden of proving medical causation, and failed to meet her burden of proving that she suffered any permanent impairment as a result of an on-the-job injury. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the judgment.

Quick v. Dunlop Tire Corp., 777 So.2d 328 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999): The trial court in this workers' compensation case ruled in favor of the employer on the grounds that the employee failed to meet his burden of proving that he suffered an on-the-job injury that contributed to cause a permanent impairment. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the judgment.

Bagwell v. Wayne Farms, 776 So.2d 223 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999): The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed a summary judgment in the employer's favor in this retaliatory discharge action, on the grounds that the employee failed to present substantial evidence that he was terminated because he filed a workers' compensation claim, rather than because he caused a serious accident while he was a probationary employee.

Pitts v. Jackson County, 138 F.3d 958 (11th Cir. 1998): In this civil-rights action involving the suicide of a prisoner, the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order granting a summary judgment in favor of a therapist on the grounds that he was entitled to qualified immunity and did not proximately cause the prisoner's death.

Lee v. Nice Time, Inc., 771 So.2d 514 (Ala. Civ. App. 1998): This was a wrongful death case in which the decedent died as a result of a stabbing at a nightclub. The trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of the nightclub on the grounds that it did not owe the decedent a duty to protect her from third-party criminal acts, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the judgment.

Wade v. Dunlop Tire Corp., 771 So.2d 515 (Ala. Civ. App. 1998): This workers' compensation case presented a question whether the trial court correctly allowed the employer a setoff against the permanent partial disability benefits owed to the employee, because the employer continued the employee's salary or paid similar compensation during the benefit period. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Cantrell v. Akin, 712 So.2d 1124 (Ala. 1997): In this medical malpractice action in which the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $700,000, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order granting a new trial to the defendant on the grounds that a juror failed to give proper responses to questions asked during voir dire.

Corder v. Hubler, 720 So.2d 1063 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997): In this action against co-employees for willful conduct, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals affirmed a summary judgment entered in favor of the co-employee defendants on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proving that the defendants removed a safety device provided by the manufacturer of a machine.

Long v. Hayle, 696 So.2d 1092 (Ala. Civ. App.1997): In this action brought by a contractor who was injured in the course of constructing a house, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals affirmed a summary judgment entered in favor of the general contractor on the grounds that the plaintiff was an independent contractor and the defendant did not breach the duty owed to the plaintiff.

Rhodes v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Inc., 683 So.2d. 52 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997): In this slip-and-fall wrongful-death action, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals affirmed a summary judgment entered in favor of the company which cleaned the floor, on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to present substantial evidence that the company was guilty of any negligence that proximately caused the accident.

Harlen v. Willis, 691 So.2d 1056 (Ala. 1996): The trial court in this medical malpractice case entered a summary judgment in favor of the defendant physician on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to present the testimony of a qualified medical expert in opposition to the motion, and the supreme court affirmed the judgment on appeal.

Brannon v. Continental Grain Company, 696 So.2d 1093 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996): The plaintiff in this workers' compensation case argued that the trial court erred in finding that the plaintiff was not permanently and totally disabled. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Guerin v. Stanley Landscaping, Inc., 696 So.2d 1096 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996): In this workers' compensation case, the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed a judgment entered in the employer's favor on the grounds that the employee failed to meet his burden of proving that he suffered a compensable injury as a result of the alleged accident.

Robinett v. Tennessee Valley Recycling, Inc., 683 So.2d 52 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996): This wrongful death action was filed after an employee was killed in an on-the-job accident. The trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of several co-employees on the grounds that they were not guilty of willful conduct, and entered a summary judgment in favor of two companies on the grounds that they were immune from liability under the special employer doctrine. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the summary judgments.

Skipworth v. Rideout's Brown-Service, Inc., 683 So.2d 54 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996): The trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of the defendant funeral home in this case involving alleged negligent handling of a corpse, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the judgment.

Adams v. City of Madison, 683 So.2d 54 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996): In this wrongful death action presenting questions whether the defendant city owed or breached a duty to maintain and control a particular section of a road, the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed a summary judgment in the defendant's favor.

Williams v. Decatur General Hospital, 682 So.2d 519 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996): The trial court in this case entered a summary judgment in the defendants' favor on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to present the required expert testimony to support a medical malpractice claim, and failed to present evidence to establish a claim under the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the summary judgment.

Walker-Thomas v. Stone, 70 F.3d 1286 (11th Cir. 1995): The Eleventh Circuit in this case reversed the district court's order granting a petition to perpetuate testimony pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 27(a).

Ayers v. Pierce, 667 So.2d 743 (Ala. 1995): This was a co-employee action in which two construction workers were injured in separate accidents while constructing an interstate highway overpass. The plaintiffs argued that two co-employees were liable for failure to install safety devices in a temporary work surface between beams of the overpass. The trial court entered a summary judgment in the defendants' favor on the grounds that they did not remove a safety device from a machine within the meaning of the Alabama statute stating the standards for co-employee liability, and the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the judgment.

Hovis v. Dunlop Tire Corp., 681 So.2d 655 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995): The plaintiff in this workers' compensation case argued that the trial court erred in its finding concerning the extent of the plaintiff's loss of earning capacity due to his injury. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Marin v. Deposit Guaranty Mortgage Company, 680 So.2d. 384 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995): This case involved claims for fraud and conspiracy arising out of the sale of a used residence. The trial court entered a summary judgment in the defendant's favor, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the judgment.

Palmer v. Dunlop Tire Corp., 666 So.2d 875 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995): The trial court in this workers' compensation case ruled in favor of the employer on the grounds that the alleged accident did not arise out of and in the course of the plaintiff's employment, because the plaintiff failed to prove that the assault on him by an unknown person was in any way related to his employment. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the judgment.

Hillis v. Stoudnour, 1995 Ala. Lexis 550 (Ala. 1995): This was a wrongful death co-employee action arising out of a worker's death while operating a machine. A wrongful death claim was filed against a supervisor for alleged removal of a safety device from the machine, and the trial court entered a summary judgment on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to show that the defendant was responsible for removal of the device, or that the removal occurred with knowledge that injury or death would likely result. The supreme court affirmed the summary judgment.

Nobles v. Crafton, 629 So.2d 815 (Ala. 1993): In this case, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed a summary judgment in favor of a teacher on a negligent supervision claim brought by students who were injured in a fight at school.

Ex parte Martin, 733 So.2d 392 (Ala. 1999): In this action against a plant manager arising out of the deaths of three workers in an explosion, the Alabama Supreme Court granted the defendant's petition for certiorari and reversed the decision of the Court of Civil Appeals, holding that the defendant was entitled to a summary judgment because the plaintiffs failed to present evidence establishing that the defendant was substantially certain that injuries would follow from his actions.

Smith v. Dunlop Tire Corp., 663 So.2d 914 (Ala. 1995): In this retaliatory discharge action, the Alabama Supreme Court answered a question of first impression by holding that an employer may lawfully terminate an employee for missing work due to an on- the-job injury, where the termination was pursuant to a "no fault" absence policy in a collective bargaining agreement under which absences occasioned by occupational accidents were not excused.

Peek v. State Auto Mutual Ins. Co., 661 So.2d 737 (Ala. 1995): In this case, which was orally argued by Mr. Kelly, the Alabama Supreme Court answered a question of first impression by declining to recognize an independent tort cause of action for spoliation of evidence.

Harrington v. Guaranty National Ins. Co., 628 So.2d 323 (Ala. 1993): The Alabama Supreme Court answered a question of first impression in this case by holding that an insurer could not be held liable for bad faith where the insurer negligently made a mistake of law regarding the applicability of a policy exclusion.

Saccuzzo v. Krystal Co., 646 So.2d 595 (Ala. 1994): The Alabama Supreme Court in this case held that a restaurant that had been the scene of substantial criminal activity could not be held liable for the wrongful death of an individual who was standing on the premises of an adjacent business when shot by a person standing in the parking lot of the restaurant.

Irons v. Service Merchandise Co., Inc., 611 So.2d 294 (Ala. 1992): In affirming a summary judgment entered in favor of the defendant employer, the Alabama Supreme Court in this case adopted the standards for determining whether a constructive discharge occurred in a retaliatory discharge action brought pursuant to Alabama's Workers' Compensation Act.

Hurst v. Nichols Research Corp., 621 So.2d 964 (Ala. 1993): In this case in which a former corporate officer claimed that he had not been given stock options that allegedly had been promised in the course of negotiations related to his employment contract, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed a summary judgment entered in favor of the corporation and its CEO on the plaintiff's claims for fraud and breach of contract.

Map
This website is in no way intended to constitute and does not constitute legal advice. There is no attorney/client relationship created by reading or viewing this website. Any information that you might send to any lawyer or law firm via email may not be confidential, privileged, or secure. Sending email does not create an attorney/client relationship with any lawyer or law firm on this website.

No representation has been made that the quality of legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services to be performed by other lawyers.