Ex parte Sachiko Rigsby. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS (In re: Shoney's, Inc. v. Sachiko Rigsby) (Montgomery Circuit Court: CV 02-237; Civil Appeals : 2041069). Writ Denied. No Opinion.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 05/25/07 Ex parte Sachiko Rigsby 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 _________________________ 1061026 _________________________ Ex parte Sachiko Rigsby PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS (In re: Shoney's, Inc. v. Sachiko Rigsby) (Montgomery Circuit Court, CV-02-237; Court of Civil Appeals, 2041069) WOODALL, Justice. WRIT DENIED. NO OPINION. See, Lyons, Stuart, Bolin, and Parker, JJ., concur. Cobb, C.J., and Smith, J., dissent. Murdock, J., recuses himself. 1061026 COBB, Chief Justice (dissenting). This petition properly presented itself for review by this Court because it states conflict as a ground for certiorari review under Rule 39(a)(1)(D), Ala. R. App. P., asserting a conflict between the decision issued by the Court of Civil Appeals in this case and Kohler Co. v. Miller, 921 So. 2d 436 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005), which discusses Masterbrand Cabinets, Inc. v. Johnson, [Ms. 2030409, June 3, 2005] ___ So. 2d ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2005), which factually analogous case authority. in turn discusses Conflict between the petitioner's case and another decided case is adequately stated when a petitioner points out that the two cases reach different results upon the application of the same principles of law to situations where there is no significant factual distinction. burden here. particularity I believe that the petitioner has met that The and Court's rigorous specificity application requirements of of the Rule 39(a)(1)(D)(2) to the petition in this case prevents our review, on a hypertechnical basis, of an issue that may well prove to be meritorious. I believe that this decision to avoid further review in this case flies in the face of the 2 1061026 governing principle of the appellate rules as expressed in Rule 1, Ala. R. App. P.: "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." Accordingly, I dissent from the denial of this petition. 3
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.
