Hillcrest, Ltd. v. City of Mobile

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel: 3/25/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 2090532 Hillcrest, Ltd. v. C i t y o f Mobile Appeal from M o b i l e C i r c u i t (CV-03-3091) Court On A p p l i c a t i o n f o r R e h e a r i n g PITTMAN, Judge. On a p p l i c a t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g , t h e a p p e l l e e C i t y o f M o b i l e posits, the and t h ed i s s e n t agrees, trial that this court has reversed c o u r t ' s judgment, i n p a r t , on a g r o u n d n o t a s s e r t e d 2090532 by the appellant, after the Hillcrest, Ltd. Suffice the a p p e l l a n t ' s b r i e f had challenged summary judgment i n i t sentirety, i t to say that the correctness of particularly arguing t h a t t h e condemnation a c t i o n b r o u g h t by t h e s t a t e d i d n o t have any preclusive effect, sought applied 1979 t o defend the t r i a l to the claimed of Mobile's court's appellee's brief judgment as i t summary i n t r u s i o n s of surface water and t h e subsequent c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e drainage the b a s i s t h a t those is, the C i t y of course, summary claims had been "abandoned." p r o p e r f o r an a p p e l l e e proper 3d f o r an arguments they So. 1 0 6 1 , 1083 appellate are v a l i d a r e n o t , as the parties, to (and t o d e c i d e , case). i s responsive determine when Thompson, of i t i s likewise whether the that on to the issues presented by writing. 2 those opinion a n d Thomas, J . , dissents, with record (Wheeler v. i s overruled. OVERRULED. P . J . , and Bryan of a appropriate, Because the a p p l i c a t i o n f o r rehearing APPLICATION Moore, court i n this original deliverance ( A l a .2009)), on Although i t judgment upon any g r o u n d t h a t m i g h t appear 39 ditch t o seek affirmance "unless due-process c o n s t r a i n t s require otherwise" George, between J J . , concur. 2090532 MOORE, J u d g e , I concurred i n this on November City an 19, 2010. of Mobile argues issue on a p p e a l summary judgment intrusion initial court's that summary to this judgment condemnation had addressed to "[W]e cannot undelineated 79 ( A l a . 1992). or waived." from the Nowhere i n i t s notes particularly that that "the correctness of the arguing general claim legal was no arising that arguments propositions argument from water for a party unsupported by S p r a d l i n v . S p r a d l i n , 601 S o . 2 d 7 6 , " A n a r g u m e n t n o t made o n a p p e a l i s a b a n d o n e d A v i s Rent A Car S y s . , I n c . v. Heilman, issued a water d i d H i l l c r e s t make on r e h e a r i n g as i n entering I agree. court the create 1 1 2 4 n.8 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) . opinion arising ___ S o . 3 d a t ___ , t h e r e a u t h o r i t y o r argument." 1111, erred challenged specifically on the a c t i o n b r o u g h t by t h e s t a t e d i d n o t have any effect," based court i n i t sentirety, preclusive intrusion. case f o r rehearing, claim Hillcrest's Although the opinion brief i n this H i l l c r e s t , L t d . , d i d not raise the t r i a l appellate brief appellant's issued In i t sa p p l i c a t i o n that on opinion onto H i l l c r e s t ' s p r o p e r t y . argument. the dissenting. by this Accordingly, court 3 on 876 S o . 2 d I conclude that the original submission i s 2090532 incorrect insofar Hillcrest's as i t reverses claim arising the foregoing, from the water summary judgment intrusion onto on i t s property. Based the City on I dissent of M o b i l e ' s a p p l i c a t i o n 4 for to the rehearing. overruling 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.