statute of limitations defense in Alabama

2026See id. " 'In Ex parte Southland Bank, 514 So. 2d 954, 955 (Ala. 1987), this Court stated that "[t]he fact that a statute of limitations defense is applicable is not a proper basis for issuing a writ of mandamus, due to the availability of a remedy by appeal." 514 So. 2d at 955 .

2026See id. " 'In Ex parte Southland Bank, 514 So. 2d 954, 955 (Ala. 1987), this Court stated that "[t]he fact that a statute of limitations defense is applicable is not a proper basis for issuing a writ of mandamus, due to the availability of a remedy by appeal." 514 So. 2d at 955 .

2025See Green Tree Acceptance, Inc. v. Blalock, 525 So. 2d 1366, 1369 (Ala. 1988)('[A] trial court has the discretion to consider a new legal argument in a post- judgment motion, but is not required to do so.').").

2017See Green Tree Acceptance, Inc. v. Blalock , 525 So.2d 1366 , 1369 (Ala. 1988) ('[A] trial court has the discretion to consider a new legal argument in a post-judgment motion, but is not required to do so.').

2014Ex parte Jackson, supra. Although the situation with which we are presented here does not involve the statute-of-limitations defense in the context of fictitious-party practice and the relation-back doctrine, the defendants, Dr. Hodge and Tombigbee Healthcare, are faced with the extraordinary circumstance of having to further litigate this matter after having demonstrated from the face of the plaintiffs complaint a clear legal right to have the action against them dismissed based on the four-year period of repose found in § 6-5-482(a).

2014Co., 775 So.2d 805, 808 (Ala.2000) (noting that the “question of subject-matter jurisdiction is reviewable by a petition for a writ of mandamus”); Ex parte Jackson, 780 So.2d 681, 684 (Ala.2000) (observing that “‘[t]he fact that a statute of limitations defense is applicable is not a proper basis for issuing a writ of mandamus, due to the availability of a remedy by appeal.’ [Ex parte Southland Bank,] 514 So.2d [954,] 955 [ (Ala.1987) ]-In a narrow class of cases involving fictitious parties and the relation-back doctrine, this Court has reviewed the merits of a trial court’s denial of a summa

2007Furthermore, this Court has held that a petition for a writ of mandamus is the appropriate vehicle by which to challenge the trial court’s denial of a motion to dismiss or a motion for a summary judgment based on a statute-of-limitations defense when “the undisputed evidence shows that the plaintiff failed to act with due diligence in identifying the fictitiously named defendant as the party the plaintiff intended to sue.” Ex parte Snow, 764 So.2d 531, 537 (Ala.1999).

2007Furthermore, this Court has held that a petition for a writ of mandamus is the appropriate vehicle by which to challenge the trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss or a motion for a summary judgment based on a statute-of-limitations defense when "the undisputed evidence shows that the plaintiff failed to act with due diligence in identifying the fictitiously named defendant as *Page 1003 the party the plaintiff intended to sue." Ex parte Snow , 764 So.2d 531 , 537 (Ala. 1999).

2007See also Ex parte Chemical Lime of Alabama, Inc., 916 So.2d 594 (Ala.2005).

2007See also Ex parte Chemical Lime of Alabama, Inc. , 916 So.2d 594 (Ala. 2005).

2002See, e.g., Ex parte Temporary Placement Services, 508 So.2d 275 (Ala.Civ.App.1987)." Ex parte Southland Bank, 514 So.2d at 955 .

1987See, e.g., Ex parte Temporary Placement Services , 508 So.2d 275 (Ala.Civ.App. 1987).

2014Co., 828 So.2d 907, 908 (Ala.2002) (“If a plaintiffs court action be dismissed to enforce an arbitration agreement, but, through no fault of the plaintiff's, the arbitration be not concluded or some of the plaintiff’s claims be not arbitrated, a statute of limitations could bar a refiling of the unarbitrated claims in court.”).

2008The statute of limitations in § 8-1-150(a), Ala.Code 1975, is a short one, and, if “through no fault of [Johnson], the arbitration be not concluded or some of [Johnson’s] claims be not arbitrated, a statute of limitations could bar a refiling of the unar-bitrated claims in court.” Porter, 828 So.2d at 908 .

2007Ex parte Buffalo Rock Co. , 941 So.2d 273 , 278 (Ala. 2006) ("[An] agreement to dismiss personal-injury claim without prejudice precluded the filing of a new claim when plaintiff failed to present evidence indicating that agreement included waiver of the statute-of-limitations defense." (summarizing holding in Jones v. Phillips , 553 So.2d 106 (Ala. 1989))).

2006See Jones v. Phillips , 553 So.2d 106 (Ala. 1989) (agreement to dismiss personal-injury claim without prejudice precluded the filing of a new claim when plaintiff failed to present evidence indicating that agreement included waiver of the statute-of-limitations defense).

2005"In McElrath v. Consolidated Pipe Supply Co., 351 So.2d 560 (Ala. 1977), this Court wrote: "` "Under this rule [15] leave to amend pleadings should be granted freely when justice so requires and the adverse party will not be prejudiced thereby, to clarify the issues and expedite the disposition of litigation. . . ." (footnotes omitted) [quoting 1A Barron and Holtzoff, Federal Practice Procedure, § 442 comments; emphasis added in McElrath ]. ". . . . "`"Prejudice may be found, however, where the amendment will cause excessive delay or where a source of evidence has become unavailable or a statu

2005"In McElrath v. Consolidated Pipe Supply Co., 351 So.2d 560 (Ala. 1977), this Court wrote: "` "Under this rule [15] leave to amend pleadings should be granted freely when justice so requires and the adverse party will not be prejudiced thereby, to clarify the issues and expedite the disposition of litigation. . . ." (footnotes omitted) [quoting 1A Barron and Holtzoff, Federal Practice Procedure, § 442 comments; emphasis added in McElrath ]. ". . . . "`"Prejudice may be found, however, where the amendment will cause excessive delay or where a source of evidence has become unavailable or a statu

2026See id. " 'In Ex parte Southland Bank, 514 So. 2d 954, 955 (Ala. 1987), this Court stated that "[t]he fact that a statute of limitations defense is applicable is not a proper basis for issuing a writ of mandamus, due to the availability of a remedy by appeal." 514 So. 2d at 955 .

2025See Special Assets, L.L.C. v. Chase Home Fin., L.L.C., 991 So. 2d 668 , 677- 78 (Ala. 2007)("Although the trial court had the discretion to consider the merits of the statute-of-limitations defense, there is no indication that it did so, and we will not presume to the contrary.

2024See Ex parte Hodge, 153 So. 3d 734, 749 (Ala. 2014) ("[T]his Court has stated that the applicability of a statute-of-limitations defense is not a proper basis for issuing a writ of mandamus, because of the availability of a remedy by appeal.").

2023As the Court explained in Payton[ v. Monsanto Co., 801 So. 2d 829 (Ala. 2001)]: " 'Alabama law does not recognize a continuing tort in instances where there has been a single act followed by multiple consequences.'2 " '_______________ " '2Moon v. Harco Drugs, Inc., 435 So. 2d 218, 220-21 (Ala. 1983), discusses the concept of "continuous tort," describing it as a defendant's 52 SC-2023-0289 The petitioners certainly have a point that this case is very similar to Abbott.

2017Under this interpretation of the parties' contractual relationships, the trial court's judgment would be affirmed, because the statute of limitations would bar all of the plaintiffs' breach of contract claims except the claims based on the 1985 tax returns." 622 So.2d at 334 (citations omitted).

2016Adler cites, for the first time on appeal, Romar Development Co. v. Gulf View Management Corp., 644 So.2d 462, 471-73 (Ala.1994)(reasoning that a compulsory counterclaim is not subject to the defense of limitations).

2016The hems also argue on appeal that the trial court erred in concluding that the rule of .repose and the statute of limitations bar their inverse-condemnation claim. “[T]he rule of repose ‘bars actions that have not been commenced within 20 years from the time they could have been commenced.’ Tierce v. Ellis, 624 So.2d 553, 554 (Ala.1993) (emphasis added).” Willis v. Shadow Lawn Mem’l Park, 709 So.2d 1241, 1243 (Ala.Civ.App.1998).

2016See also Exxon Corp. v. Department of Conservation & Natural Res., 859 So.2d 1096, 1102 (Ala.2002) (‘In Romar, this Court ruled that all compulsory counterclaims, whether offensive or defensive, are not subject to the statute-of-limitations defense.’).

2016The hems also argue on appeal that the trial court erred in concluding that the rule of .repose and the statute of limitations bar their inverse-condemnation claim. “[T]he rule of repose ‘bars actions that have not been commenced within 20 years from the time they could have been commenced.’ Tierce v. Ellis, 624 So.2d 553, 554 (Ala.1993) (emphasis added).” Willis v. Shadow Lawn Mem’l Park, 709 So.2d 1241, 1243 (Ala.Civ.App.1998).