Ex parte Hibbett Sporting Goods, Inc.: For venue purposes, pursuant to Alabama Code (1975) § 6-3-7(a)(3), proper venue is not established by the principal of an entity doing business in a particular county, rather than an agent. Facts and Contentions Keith Cantrell was a commercial driver for Hibbett Sporting Goods, Inc (“Hibbett Sporting Goods”). During his employment, he was injured while in Indiana. Cantrell sued Hibbett Sporting Goods for workers’ compensation benefits, bringing his claim in Lamar County, Alabama. Cantrell lived in Lamar County. Hibbett Sporting Goods filed a motion to transfer venue to Jefferson County, arguing that Lamar County was an improper venue,...
The Alabama legislature has passed legislation that could substantially affect the number of circuit and district court judges sitting in venues in the state. Assuming that SB90 becomes law, it will mandate the creation of the Judicial Resources Allocation Commission. The Judicial Resources Allocation Commission will be tasked with annually reviewing the need for either increasing or decreasing judgeships in district and circuit courts and ranking each court according to need. Members of the Judicial Resources Allocation Commission The commission will be made up of the following, and should reflect the “racial, gender, geographic, urban/rural, and economic diversity of the state”: The Chief Justice...
Ex parte Gentile Company, LLC: Where a party fails to support its unsworn pleadings with evidence supporting its arguments, the party’s motion will not be granted because statements and arguments of counsel in unsworn pleadings are not evidence. Gentile Company, LLC and Bright Star Restaurant, Inc. entered into a contract for Gentile to provide cleaning services for Bright Star. Gentile alleges that Bright Star wrongfully terminated the contract in April 2016. In May 2016, Gentile brought suit against Bright Star for breach of contract in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County. Bright Star is located in the Bessemer Cutoff of Jefferson...
![[No.24] Hugo Black on Constitutional Perspective](https://www.jeremywrichter.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/HBlack-2-80x80.jpg)
Justice Hugo Black: “The layman’s constitutional view is that what he likes is constitutional and that which he doesn’t like is unconstitutional.”
Throughout most of human existence, storytellers were the gatekeepers of history. But as the written word has evolved, the art of oral storytelling has become less practiced and less important but, when done well, no less effective. For years Steve Heninger has been widely recognized as one of the preeminent trial lawyers in Alabama. Part of what helps him stand out is his method of weaving storytelling into the fabric of his cases. I have both heard Mr. Heninger speak on the topic of storytelling, and read his recent article, “License to Tell,” in the September 2016 edition of The Alabama...
Ex parte April Steele Benton: When suit may be properly filed in more than one venue, the interest of justice prong of the forum non conveniens statute gives great weight to the county where material events occurred. Facts of the Matter On December 4, 2014, April Steele Benton (Bibb County resident) and Amir Alan Ebrahimi (Shelby County resident) were involved in a collision in Shelby County. Ebrahimi was injured in the accident, and filed suit in Bibb County against Benton and her husband John Benton (owner of the vehicle April was driving), and State Farm (for underinsured motorist benefits). For Argument’s Sake...
Beginning in 2017, parties to a lawsuit in circuit court in Alabama, whose damages are limited to $50,000.00 can voluntarily assent to their case being assigned to the Alabama Rules for Expedited Civil Actions.
Ex parte Jim Burke Automotive – In breach of contract and personal injury claims, venue is proper where the wrongful act or omission occurred, rather than where the resulting damage to the plaintiff was incurred.
Alabama law will govern tort claims arising out of injuries that occurred in Alabama.
Deborah Barker, et al. v. Joe N. Bennett – A prescriptive easement is properly asserted when the easement holder shows adverse use, a claim of right, exclusivity, and knowledge of the owner.
