Anderson brief in Alabama

2013As the main opinion holds, because “the circuit court did not cite undue prejudice or undue delay as reasons for denying [Michael Dewayne] Anderson’s motion for leave to amend,” the judgment of the circuit court is due to be reversed under Ex “parte Rhone, 900 So.2d 455 (Ala.2004), and its progeny.

2003Citing Ex parte Johnson, 620 So.2d 665 (Ala.1993), Anderson argues that a certified copy of his 1998 first-degree assault conviction, together with Detective Evans’s testimony, was insufficient to establish that he had been convicted of a crime of violence, as that term is defined in § 13A-11-70, Ala.Code 1975.

2000In his petition for a writ of mandamus, Dr. Anderson presents two issues: "(1) Whether the trial court erred in compelling discovery of `other incidents' of alleged malpractice committed by Dr. Anderson; and, "(2) Whether the trial court erred in compelling discovery relating to any review of Dr. Anderson's medical, surgical, or staff privileges." (See Dr. Anderson's brief to this Court, p. 8.) This Court stated in Ex parte Pfizer, Inc., 746 So.2d 960 (Ala.1999): "The writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, and one petitioning for that writ must show `(1) a clear legal right in the petiti

2000In his petition for a writ of mandamus, Dr. Anderson presents two issues: "(1) Whether the trial court erred in compelling discovery of `other incidents' of alleged malpractice committed by Dr. Anderson; and, "(2) Whether the trial court erred in compelling discovery relating to any review of Dr. Anderson's medical, surgical, or staff privileges." (See Dr. Anderson's brief to this Court, p. 8.) This Court stated in Ex parte Pfizer, Inc. , 746 So.2d 960 (Ala. 1999): "The writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, and one petitioning for that writ must show `(1) a clear legal right in the peti

2000In his petition for a writ of mandamus, Dr. Anderson presents two issues: "(1) Whether the trial court erred in compelling discovery of `other incidents' of alleged malpractice committed by Dr. Anderson; and, "(2) Whether the trial court erred in compelling discovery relating to any review of Dr. Anderson's medical, surgical, or staff privileges." (See Dr. Anderson's brief to this Court, p. 8.) This Court stated in Ex parte Pfizer, Inc., 746 So.2d 960 (Ala.1999): "The writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, and one petitioning for that writ must show `(1) a clear legal right in the petiti

2000In his petition for a writ of mandamus, Dr. Anderson presents two issues: "(1) Whether the trial court erred in compelling discovery of `other incidents' of alleged malpractice committed by Dr. Anderson; and, "(2) Whether the trial court erred in compelling discovery relating to any review of Dr. Anderson's medical, surgical, or staff privileges." (See Dr. Anderson's brief to this Court, p. 8.) This Court stated in Ex parte Pfizer, Inc. , 746 So.2d 960 (Ala. 1999): "The writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, and one petitioning for that writ must show `(1) a clear legal right in the peti

2000In his petition for a writ of mandamus, Dr. Anderson presents two issues: "(1) Whether the trial court erred in compelling discovery of `other incidents' of alleged malpractice committed by Dr. Anderson; and, "(2) Whether the trial court erred in compelling discovery relating to any review of Dr. Anderson's medical, surgical, or staff privileges." (See Dr. Anderson's brief to this Court, p. 8.) This Court stated in Ex parte Pfizer, Inc., 746 So.2d 960 (Ala.1999): "The writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, and one petitioning for that writ must show `(1) a clear legal right in the petiti

2000In his petition for a writ of mandamus, Dr. Anderson presents two issues: "(1) Whether the trial court erred in compelling discovery of `other incidents' of alleged malpractice committed by Dr. Anderson; and, "(2) Whether the trial court erred in compelling discovery relating to any review of Dr. Anderson's medical, surgical, or staff privileges." (See Dr. Anderson's brief to this Court, p. 8.) This Court stated in Ex parte Pfizer, Inc. , 746 So.2d 960 (Ala. 1999): "The writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, and one petitioning for that writ must show `(1) a clear legal right in the peti

2000In his petition for a writ of mandamus, Dr. Anderson presents two issues: "(1) Whether the trial court erred in compelling discovery of `other incidents' of alleged malpractice committed by Dr. Anderson; and, "(2) Whether the trial court erred in compelling discovery relating to any review of Dr. Anderson's medical, surgical, or staff privileges." (See Dr. Anderson's brief to this Court, p. 8.) This Court stated in Ex parte Pfizer, Inc., 746 So.2d 960 (Ala.1999): "The writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, and one petitioning for that writ must show `(1) a clear legal right in the petiti

2000In his petition for a writ of mandamus, Dr. Anderson presents two issues: "(1) Whether the trial court erred in compelling discovery of `other incidents' of alleged malpractice committed by Dr. Anderson; and, "(2) Whether the trial court erred in compelling discovery relating to any review of Dr. Anderson's medical, surgical, or staff privileges." (See Dr. Anderson's brief to this Court, p. 8.) This Court stated in Ex parte Pfizer, Inc. , 746 So.2d 960 (Ala. 1999): "The writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, and one petitioning for that writ must show `(1) a clear legal right in the peti

2000In his petition for a writ of mandamus, Dr. Anderson presents two issues: "(1) Whether the trial court erred in compelling discovery of `other incidents' of alleged malpractice committed by Dr. Anderson; and, "(2) Whether the trial court erred in compelling discovery relating to any review of Dr. Anderson's medical, surgical, or staff privileges." (See Dr. Anderson's brief to this Court, p. 8.) This Court stated in Ex parte Pfizer, Inc. , 746 So.2d 960 (Ala. 1999): "The writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, and one petitioning for that writ must show `(1) a clear legal right in the peti

2000In his petition for a writ of mandamus, Dr. Anderson presents two issues: "(1) Whether the trial court erred in compelling discovery of `other incidents' of alleged malpractice committed by Dr. Anderson; and, "(2) Whether the trial court erred in compelling discovery relating to any review of Dr. Anderson's medical, surgical, or staff privileges." (See Dr. Anderson's brief to this Court, p. 8.) This Court stated in Ex parte Pfizer, Inc. , 746 So.2d 960 (Ala. 1999): "The writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, and one petitioning for that writ must show `(1) a clear legal right in the peti

2000In his petition for a writ of mandamus, Dr. Anderson presents two issues: "(1) Whether the trial court erred in compelling discovery of `other incidents' of alleged malpractice committed by Dr. Anderson; and, "(2) Whether the trial court erred in compelling discovery relating to any review of Dr. Anderson's medical, surgical, or staff privileges." (See Dr. Anderson's brief to this Court, p. 8.) This Court stated in Ex parte Pfizer, Inc., 746 So.2d 960 (Ala.1999): "The writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, and one petitioning for that writ must show `(1) a clear legal right in the petiti

2000In his petition for a writ of mandamus, Dr. Anderson presents two issues: "(1) Whether the trial court erred in compelling discovery of `other incidents' of alleged malpractice committed by Dr. Anderson; and, "(2) Whether the trial court erred in compelling discovery relating to any review of Dr. Anderson's medical, surgical, or staff privileges." (See Dr. Anderson's brief to this Court, p. 8.) This Court stated in Ex parte Pfizer, Inc. , 746 So.2d 960 (Ala. 1999): "The writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, and one petitioning for that writ must show `(1) a clear legal right in the peti

1998In Ex parte Whisenant, supra, 466 So.2d 1006 , the Alabama Supreme Court held that the traditional exclusionary rule is applicable to all the provisions of what is now Rule 11(B), Ala.R.Juv.P.

1998In Ex parte Whisenant, supra, 466 So.2d 1006 , the Alabama Supreme Court held that the traditional exclusionary rule is applicable to all the provisions of what is now Rule 11(B), Ala.R.Juv.P.

1997Nothing in the trial court's attempted order *Page 218 of certification indicates "why it is necessary that appellate review of the dismissal of [the claims against Anderson] be conducted prior to adjudication of the entire case." See Brown , 681 So.2d at 229 .

1996Anderson was only acting as an intermediary in these transactions as an accommodation to the plaintiff. . . .' Anderson's answer (C.R.22). 'Sales, nominally to certain company but in fact to its customers, must be regarded as sales to its customers.' Barber-Greene Co. v. Gould , [ 215 Ala. 73 ,] 109 So. 364 (1926) [quoting West's headnote 5].

1996Anderson was only acting as an intermediary in these transactions as an accommodation to the plaintiff. . . .' Anderson's answer (C.R.22). 'Sales, nominally to certain company but in fact to its customers, must be regarded as sales to its customers.' Barber-Greene Co. v. Gould , [ 215 Ala. 73 ,] 109 So. 364 (1926) [quoting West's headnote 5].