Ex parte Paula Denise Shively. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS (In re: Paula Denise Shively v. CRR Hospitality, LLC, et al.) (Baldwin Circuit Court: CV 04-577; Civil Appeals : 2050271). Writ Denied. No Opinion.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 03/30/2007 Shively Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 242-4621), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter. SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2006-2007 ____________________ 1060337 ____________________ Ex parte Paula Denise Shively PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS (In re: Paula Denise Shively v. CRR Hospitality, LLC, et al.) (Baldwin Circuit Court, CV-04-577; Court of Civil Appeals, 2050271) PER CURIAM. WRIT DENIED. NO OPINION. 1060337 See, Lyons, Woodall, Stuart, Smith, Bolin, and Parker, JJ., concur. Cobb, C.J., dissents. Murdock, J., recuses himself. 2 1060337 COBB, Chief Justice (dissenting). I respectfully dissent from the denial of this petition for the writ of certiorari. To the extent this Court's denial rests upon a strict application of the particularity and specificity requirements of Rule 39(a)(1)(D), Ala.R.App.P., I believe that such an application should defer to the policy set out in Rule 1 for applying the Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure: "These rules shall not be construed to extend or limit the jurisdiction of these appellate courts as established by constitution or law. They shall be construed so as to assure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every appellate proceeding on its merits." (Emphasis added.) Based upon my review of Paula Denise Shively's petition, I conclude that Shively adequately asserted that a conflict exists between the no-opinion affirmance issued by the Court of Civil Appeals in her case and that court's opinion in City of Auburn v. Brown, 638 So. 2d 1339 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993) . I believe that Shively's assertion of a conflict sufficiently raised for review the issue whether in affirming the trial court's judgment, the Court of Civil Appeals disregarded the treating physician's testimony 3 concerning the origin and 1060337 extent of Shively's injuries. I believe that if Shively's position that the Court of Civil Appeals did ignore the treating physician's testimony is supported by the record, her position would have merit; therefore, I would have granted the petition for a review of the record on that basis. 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
