Ex parte Maxwell Uhakheme.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 06/24/2016 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) 229-0649), 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, 2015-2016 _________________________ 1141367 _________________________ Ex parte Maxwell Uhakheme PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Anniston HMA, LLC, d/b/a Stringfellow Memorial Hospital v. Maxwell Uhakheme) (Calhoun Circuit Court, CV-15-900273) WISE, Justice. 1141367 PETITION DENIED; Stuart, Bolin, NO OPINION. Parker, Shaw, concur. Murdock, J., concurs specially. 2 Main, and Bryan, JJ., 1141367 MURDOCK, Justice (concurring specially). I concur in the denial of the petition for the writ of mandamus. I write to explain that my concurrence does not communicate any opinion as to the merits of the issues raised in the petition regarding the trial court's order dismissing Maxwell Uhakheme's counterclaim alleging breach of contract. I concur in the denial of the petition because appellate review of an order granting a motion to dismiss a claim (or granting a motion for a summary judgment, as occurred here, given the fact that the trial court considered materials outside the pleadings, see Rule 56(c)(3), Ala. R. Civ. P.) is not by way of a petition for a writ of mandamus but by an appeal governed by the strictures of Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P. In this case, the strictures of Rule 54(b) have not been satisfied. Other claims and counterclaims remain pending, and the trial court has not certified its order as final (and I doubt it could properly do so given the intertwined nature of the dismissed claim and the remaining claims of the 3 1141367 plaintiff and the counterclaims of Uhakheme). And, of course, unless and until the trial court were to adjudicate those other claims or to certify the order at issue as final, the order is subject to being altered or vacated by the trial court itself under the terms of Rule 54(b). In short, appellate review is not available in a circumstance such as this. Were this Court to begin granting mandamus review of such orders, we would effectively nullify Rule 54(b), circumventing the conditions for such review prescribed by that rule, tempting trial courts to postpone consideration of remaining claims until an interlocutory appellate ruling is obtained, and requiring the expenditure of limited appellate resources on petitions seeking piecemeal review. 4 an untold number of
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.
