Ex parte Shari Harrison as Executrix of the Estate of B.L. Bishop. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS: CIVIL (In re: The Estate of B. L. Bishop) (Marshall Circuit Court: CV-10-206). Petition Denied. No Opinion.

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 10/07/2011 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) 2290649), 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, 2011-2012 ____________________ 1100360 ____________________ Ex parte Shari Harrison, as executrix of the estate of B.L. Bishop PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Estate of B.L. Bishop) (Marshall Circuit Court, CV-10-206) MAIN, Justice. PETITION DENIED. NO OPINION. Malone, C.J., and Woodall and Bolin, JJ., concur. Murdock, J., concurs specially. 1100360 MURDOCK, Justice (concurring specially). The petitioner, Shari Harrison, as executrix of the estate of B.L. Bishop, seeks a writ of mandamus from this Court on the ground that the claims and proceedings at issue are barred by principles of collateral estoppel and/or res judicata because of a ruling by the circuit court that that court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over similar claims and proceedings previously filed in, but dismissed by, that court. It is not clear to me what, if any, difference exists between the posture of, or the facts relating to, the previous claims and proceedings and the posture of, or the facts relating to, the newly filed claims and proceedings, which the circuit court has decided not to dismiss. The uncertainty affecting this case also prevents me from concluding, however, that a clear legal right to relief has been shown at this juncture. For this reason, I concur in denying the petition for the writ of mandamus. 2

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.