Moore v. ClaimSouth, Inc., 628 So. 2d 500 (Ala. 1993). · Go Syfert
Search
Moore v. ClaimSouth, Inc., 628 So. 2d 500 (Ala. 1993). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
25 citation events (15 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Tucker v. Morgan (alacivapp, 2002-04-19)
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Tucker v. Morgan
Ala. Civ. App. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See Northwest Florida Truss, Inc. v. Baldwin County Comm’n, supra. See also Moore v. ClaimSouth, Inc., 628 So.2d 500 (Ala.1993); Thompson v. Rehabworks of Florida, Inc., 727 So.2d 807 (Ala.Civ.App.1998).
cited Cited "see" Singleton v. Alabama Dept. of Corrections
Ala. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Rule 56(c), Ala.R.Civ.P., Northwest Florida Truss, Inc. v. Baldwin County Comm'n , 782 So.2d 274 (Ala. 2000), and Moore v. Claimsouth, Inc ., 628 So.2d 500 (Ala. 1993).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Cashion v. Torbert
Ala. · 2003 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also West, Robinson , and Lesley , supra. Cashion also argues, citing Northwest Florida Truss, Inc. v. Baldwin County Commission , 782 So.2d 274 (Ala. 2000), Moore v. ClaimSouth, Inc. , 628 So.2d 500 (Ala. 1993), and Hale v. Union Foundry Co. , 673 So.2d 762 (Ala.Civ.App. 1995), that Torbert's summary-judgment motion was procedurally flawed because it was not supported by a narrative summary of the undisputed material facts, as required by Rule 56, Ala. R.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Donald Moore and Melinda Moore
v.
Claimsouth, Inc.
1920869.
Supreme Court of Alabama.
Sep 24, 1993.
628 So. 2d 500
1993 WL 371869
Dennis Harmon, Columbus, MS, for appellants. Page 501 William P. Gray, Jr., Tuscaloosa, for appellee.
Ingram.
Cited by 17 opinions  |  Published

The trial court granted the motion of the defendant, ClaimSouth, Inc., for a summary judgment against the plaintiffs, Donald and Melinda Moore. The Moores appealed, contending, among other things, that the trial court erred in entering the summary judgment because ClaimSouth had failed to comply with A.R.Civ.P., Rule 56(c)(1).

Effective August 1, 1992, Rule 56(c) was amended as follows1:

"(1) Form of Motion and Statement in Opposition Thereto. [A summary judgment] motion shall be supported by a narrative summary of what the movant contends to be the undisputed material facts; that narrative summary may be set forth in the motion or may be attached as an exhibit. The narrative summary shall be supported by specific references to pleadings, portions of discovery materials, or affidavits and may include citations to legal authority."

ClaimSouth's motion for summary judgment did not contain anything close to a narrative summary of what it contended to be the undisputed material facts. In fact, it stated only that "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the Defendant, ClaimSouth, Inc., is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." The motion noted that it was based upon the pleadings and certain depositions, but made no specific reference to any of those documents.

As concerns the form of the motion for summary judgment, Rule 56(c)(1) is clear that the motion "shall be supported by a narrative summary of what the movant contends to be the undisputed material facts." (Emphasis added.) ClaimSouth failed to follow the mandates of Rule 56(c)(1).

Because ClaimSouth did not comply with Rule 56(c)(1), it failed to meet its initial burden of proof; therefore, the summary judgment motion was improperly granted in ClaimSouth's favor.

The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

HORNSBY, C.J., and ALMON, ADAMS and STEAGALL, JJ., concur.

1 The complaint in this case was filed after the effective date of the amendment to Rule 56, A.R.Civ.P.