scheduled hearing in Alabama

2016See, e.g., K.L.U., 809 So.2d at 840 ; and Casey v. Casey, 85 So.3d 435 , 439 n. 2 (Ala.Civ.App.2011) ("[AJIthough the trial court scheduled a hearing to review the former husband’s supervised visitation, the judgment was final.”).

2011See K.L.U. v. M.C., 809 So.2d 837, 840 (Ala.Civ.App.2001) (concluding that judgment containing supervised-visitation award to father was final and would support an appeal, although trial court had already set a hearing to review the father's supervised visitation).

1992Nothing in such a claim indicates that the attorney's failure to appear ' "was other than deliberate or the product of neglect," ' United States v. Cirami , 563 F.2d at 34 (quoting Link v. Wabash Railroad Co. , 370 U.S. 626 , 82 S.Ct. 1386 , 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962)); or 'the result of his having taken on too may cases to give proper attention [to the one at hand],' id. (citing Schwarz v. United States , 384 F.2d 833 , 836 (2d Cir. 1967); Cline v. Hoogland , 518 F.2d 776 , 778 (8th Cir. 1975)).

1992Nothing in such a claim indicates that the attorney’s failure to appear ‘ “was other than deliberate or the product of neglect,” ’ United States v. Cirami, 563 F.2d at 34 (quoting Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626 , 82 S.Ct. 1386 , 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962)); or ‘the result of his having taken on too may cases to give proper attention [to the one at hand],’ id. (citing Schwarz v. United States, 384 F.2d 833, 836 (2d Cir.1967); Cline v. Hoogland, 518 F.2d 776, 778 (8th Cir.1975)).

1992Nothing in such a claim indicates that the attorney's failure to appear ' "was other than deliberate or the product of neglect," ' United States v. Cirami , 563 F.2d at 34 (quoting Link v. Wabash Railroad Co. , 370 U.S. 626 , 82 S.Ct. 1386 , 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962)); or 'the result of his having taken on too may cases to give proper attention [to the one at hand],' id. (citing Schwarz v. United States , 384 F.2d 833 , 836 (2d Cir. 1967); Cline v. Hoogland , 518 F.2d 776 , 778 (8th Cir. 1975)).

1992Nothing in such a claim indicates that the attorney’s failure to appear ‘ “was other than deliberate or the product of neglect,” ’ United States v. Cirami, 563 F.2d at 34 (quoting Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626 , 82 S.Ct. 1386 , 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962)); or ‘the result of his having taken on too may cases to give proper attention [to the one at hand],’ id. (citing Schwarz v. United States, 384 F.2d 833, 836 (2d Cir.1967); Cline v. Hoogland, 518 F.2d 776, 778 (8th Cir.1975)).

2002This Court reversed the summary judgment, stating: “Because Rule 56(c)(2) specifically provides that a nonmoving party has until two days before the date of the hearing to file ‘any statement or affidavit in opposition’ to the motion, we conclude that the trial court erred in ruling eight days before the date of the scheduled hearing. ... [W]e conclude that a nonmoving party has a right to expect that a trial judge, having set a date for a hearing on a summary-judgment motion, will not issue a ruling before that party has had an opportunity to timely respond to the motion.” 757 So.2d at 411 (f

2000We stated that "[b]ecause Rule 56(c)(2) specifically provides that a nonmoving party has until two days before the date of the hearing to file `any statement or affidavit in opposition' to the motion, we conclude that the trial court erred by ruling eight days before the date of the scheduled hearing." Hill , 757 So.2d at 411 .

2026See also Ex parte Tarpley, 293 Ala. 137 , 300 So. 2d 409 (1974).

2026See also Ex parte Tarpley, 293 Ala. 137 , 300 So. 2d 409 (1974).

2025Nevertheless, caselaw suggests that even "an attorney's unexcused failure to appear at a scheduled hearing" may be "insufficient to show a failure to prosecute." Burdeshaw v. White, 585 So. 2d 842, 849 (Ala. 1991).

2017See Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 , 70 S.Ct. 652 , 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950) (holding that notice is sufficient if it is “of such nature as reasonably to convey the required information” so as to allow the opposing party to “choose for himself whether to appear or default, acquiesce or contest”).

2017See Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 , 70 S.Ct. 652 , 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950) (holding that notice is sufficient if it is “of such nature as reasonably to convey the required information” so as to allow the opposing party to “choose for himself whether to appear or default, acquiesce or contest”).

2015The trial court proceeded to conduct the hearing without the father present, and, without receiving any evidence, it entered,a judgment stating, in pertinent part: •“The Court, after careful'review of the record and having specific recollection of the testimony and evidence presented at previous hearings, notes that the parties are currently exercising joint legal custody of their minor child ... and finds it to be in the best interest of the minor child for temporary physical custody to be awarded to the mother pending further' order of this Court.” The father then filed a petition for -the w

2015The trial court proceeded to conduct the hearing without the father present, and, without receiving any evidence, it entered,a judgment stating, in pertinent part: •“The Court, after careful'review of the record and having specific recollection of the testimony and evidence presented at previous hearings, notes that the parties are currently exercising joint legal custody of their minor child ... and finds it to be in the best interest of the minor child for temporary physical custody to be awarded to the mother pending further' order of this Court.” The father then filed a petition for -the w

2013See also Ingram v. Allred, 119 So.3d 1176, 1177-78 (Ala.Civ.App.2013) (concluding that an attorney’s failure to appear at a scheduled hearing was criminal contempt); Ex parte Baker, 623 So.2d 304, 306 (Ala.Civ.App.1993) (trial court’s contempt sanction against attorney for failing to appear was to “impress upon [the attorney] the importance of respecting a court order and to impose punishment”).

2013See, e.g., Ex parte Baker, supra. We agree with the reasoning of the Court of Criminal Appeals, however, that an attorney’s failure to appear at a scheduled hearing generally subjects that attorney to a finding of constructive contempt, not direct contempt.

2013See Quick, supra. Accordingly, the procedures set forth in Rule 70A(c) should have been followed before the trial court found Sheffield in contempt.

2013See also Ingram v. Allred, 119 So.3d 1176, 1177-78 (Ala.Civ.App.2013) (concluding that an attorney’s failure to appear at a scheduled hearing was criminal contempt); Ex parte Baker, 623 So.2d 304, 306 (Ala.Civ.App.1993) (trial court’s contempt sanction against attorney for failing to appear was to “impress upon [the attorney] the importance of respecting a court order and to impose punishment”).

2011See, e.g., Ex parte Lang, 500 So.2d 3 (Ala. 1986), and Curry v. Curry, 962 So.2d 261 (Ala.Civ.App.2007). [2] We conclude that, although the trial court scheduled a hearing to review the former husband's supervised visitation, the judgment was final.

2011See, e.g., Ex parte Lang, 500 So.2d 3 (Ala. 1986), and Curry v. Curry, 962 So.2d 261 (Ala.Civ.App.2007). [2] We conclude that, although the trial court scheduled a hearing to review the former husband's supervised visitation, the judgment was final.