Alabama Power motion in Alabama

2018As the circuit court subsequently stated in its order denying Alabama Power's motion to dismiss, that notice of appeal "arguably included a reference to the wrong order"; however, we note that it was nevertheless a "written notice of appeal" invoking § 18-1A-283 that was properly filed in the probate court after the June 8 order of condemnation. 5 Thus, this is not a case presenting a clear jurisdictional problem such as a missed deadline, see, e.g., Ex parte City of Irondale , 686 So.2d at 1128 (notice of appeal of August 21 order was not filed in the probate court until September 28, more th

2018As the circuit court subsequently stated in its order denying Alabama Power's motion to dismiss, that notice of appeal "arguably included a reference to the wrong order"; however, we note that it was nevertheless a "written notice of appeal" invoking § 18-1A-283 that was properly filed in the probate court after the June 8 order of condemnation. 5 Thus, this is not a case presenting a clear jurisdictional problem such as a missed deadline, see, e.g., Ex parte City of Irondale , 686 So.2d at 1128 (notice of appeal of August 21 order was not filed in the probate court until September 28, more th

1991The record reflects that, consistent with Hammond v. City of Gadsden, 493 So.2d 1374 (Ala. 1986), the trial court held a hearing and stated, on the record, its reasons for denying Alabama Power's motion for a new trial based upon the alleged excessiveness of the jury's verdict.

1991The record reflects that, consistent with Hammond v. City of Gadsden , 493 So.2d 1374 (Ala. 1986), the trial court held a hearing and stated, on the record, its reasons for denying Alabama Power's motion for a new trial based upon the alleged excessiveness of the jury's verdict.

2005This Court, reversing the trial court's order denying Alabama Power's motion for a JML, concluded that "[t]he evidence established without dispute the existence of a misrepresentation by Aldridge." 854 So.2d at 569 .

1993While we do not condone Alabama Power's violation of APSC Rule 12 or particularly admire its impassive view of Jackson's condition, we do not find that its actions sunk to the level of being "atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized society," American Road Service Co. v. Inmon , 394 So.2d at 365 , nor can we hold that the two brief periods Jackson was without electricity caused her more distress than a reasonable person could be expected to endure.

1991The following excerpt from that order reveals that the trial judge reviewed the evidence in a manner consistent with the factors outlined in Green Oil Co. v. Hornsby, 539 So.2d 218 (Ala.1989): "Defendant also contends that the jury's verdict of five million dollars was excessive and that this Court should conditionally grant a new trial upon the Plaintiff's failure to accept a remittitur.

1991The following excerpt from that order reveals that the trial judge reviewed the evidence in a manner consistent with the factors outlined in Green Oil Co. v. Hornsby , 539 So.2d 218 (Ala. 1989): "Defendant also contends that the jury's verdict of five million dollars was excessive and that this Court should conditionally grant a new trial upon the Plaintiff's failure to accept a remittitur.

1990Robinson, supra; Lady Corinne Trawlers, supra. Alabama Power argues that Tittle's and Nichols's affidavits provided only examples of attempts by Alabama Power employees to supervise progress or to stop unsafe acts on the job site, which, it argues, a premises owner may do without assuming a duty to ensure the safety of the independent contractor's employees.

1990Robinson, supra; Lady Corinne Trawlers, supra. Alabama Power argues that Tittle's and Nichols's affidavits provided only examples of attempts by Alabama Power employees to supervise progress or to stop unsafe acts on the job site, which, it argues, a premises owner may do without assuming a duty to ensure the safety of the independent contractor's employees.

1989Maffett v. Roberts, 388 So.2d 972 (Ala.1980); Matthews Bros.

1988See generally, Alabama Power Co. v. Cantrell , 507 So.2d 1295 (Ala. 1987), appeal docketed, 56 U.S.L.W. 3166 (U.S. Aug. 20, 1987) (No. 87-294); Alabama Power Co. v. Brooks , 479 So.2d 1169 (Ala. 1985); Alabama Power Co. v. Alexander , 370 So.2d 252 (Ala. 1979).

1988See generally, Alabama Power Co. v. Cantrell , 507 So.2d 1295 (Ala. 1987), appeal docketed, 56 U.S.L.W. 3166 (U.S. Aug. 20, 1987) (No. 87-294); Alabama Power Co. v. Brooks , 479 So.2d 1169 (Ala. 1985); Alabama Power Co. v. Alexander , 370 So.2d 252 (Ala. 1979).

1984Taylor v. Taylor , 292 Ala. 569 , 298 So.2d 8 (1974). 4 We see no legal barrier to such an approach.

1984Taylor v. Taylor , 292 Ala. 569 , 298 So.2d 8 (1974). 4 We see no legal barrier to such an approach.

1977Appellant contends that his complaint has become the “law of the case” due to Judge Ingram Beasley’s overruling of Alabama Power’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, citing, inter alia, In re Midwest Milk Monopolization Litigation, 380 F.Supp. 880 (W.D.Mo.1974); the motion for summary judgment was later granted by Judge Russell McElroy.

1977We find no error in the trial court's overruling Alabama Power's motion for a mistrial for the same reasons which this Court gave in Alabama Electric Co-operative, Inc., v. Partridge , 283 Ala. 251 , 256 , 215 So.2d 580 , 584 (1968): "It would appear from the record that the entire argument of appellants, or the language that plaintiff's (appellee's) counsel contended he was answering `in kind,' was not set out in the record.

1977We find no error in the trial court's overruling Alabama Power's motion for a mistrial for the same reasons which this Court gave in Alabama Electric Co-operative, Inc., v. Partridge , 283 Ala. 251 , 256 , 215 So.2d 580 , 584 (1968): "It would appear from the record that the entire argument of appellants, or the language that plaintiff's (appellee's) counsel contended he was answering `in kind,' was not set out in the record.