Ex parte Jennifer Ann Vest (Herron). PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Jennifer Ann Vest (Herron) v. David Jeremy Vest)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 1/11/13 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, 2012-2013 2100647 Ex p a r t e J e n n i f e r Ann V e s t (Herron) PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : J e n n i f e r Ann V e s t (Herron) v. David Jeremy Vest) (Elmore C i r c u i t Court, DR-01-492.02 A f t e r Remand f r o m t h e A l a b a m a Supreme Court BRYAN, J u d g e . The supreme c o u r t h a s r e v e r s e d t h i s c o u r t ' s S e p t e m b e r 2, 2011, judgment and remanded the cause for further 2100647 c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus f i l e d b y J e n n i f e r Ann V e s t ( H e r r o n ) ( " t h e m o t h e r " ) on A p r i l 14, 2 0 1 1 , i n l i g h t o f t h e supreme c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n . Ex p a r t e V e s t , [Ms. 1110192, September 14, 2012] So. 3d ( A l a . 2012) ("the supreme c o u r t ' s S e p t e m b e r 14 d e c i s i o n " ) . In the o u r September 2, 2 0 1 1 , j u d g m e n t , we d i d n o t issue defense revive 1 whether t h e mother had waived her address affirmative b a s e d on § 6-5-440, A l a . Code 1975, a n d h a d f a i l e d t o i t before the Elmore C i r c u i t Court entered i t s April 13, 2011, o r d e r , w h i c h i s t h e s u b j e c t o f t h e mother's 14, 2 0 1 1 , mandamus April petition. S e c t i o n 6-5-440 p r o v i d e s : "No p l a i n t i f f i s e n t i t l e d to prosecute two a c t i o n s i n t h e c o u r t s o f t h i s s t a t e a t t h e same t i m e f o r t h e same c a u s e a n d a g a i n s t t h e same p a r t y . I n s u c h a c a s e , t h e d e f e n d a n t may r e q u i r e t h e p l a i n t i f f t o e l e c t w h i c h he w i l l p r o s e c u t e , i f commenced s i m u l t a n e o u s l y , and t h e pendency o f t h e former i s a good d e f e n s e t o t h e l a t t e r i f commenced a t d i f f e r e n t times." (Emphasis added.) As n o t e d by J u s t i c e Stuart i n her s p e c i a l For a d e t a i l e d r e c i t a t i o n of the procedural h i s t o r y of t h i s c a u s e b e f o r e t h e m o t h e r f i l e d t h e mandamus p e t i t i o n t h a t i s now b e f o r e u s , s e e Ex p a r t e V e s t , 68 So. 3d 881 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 1 ) ; a n d Ex p a r t e V e s t , [Ms. 2100647, September 2, 2011] So. 3d ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 1 ) . 1 2 2100647 c o n c u r r e n c e i n t h e supreme c o u r t ' s 5-440 "'"does n o t of' jurisdiction second-filed Campbell, turn First ( A l a . 1998) over action J., concurring v. provide the So. the second-filed 3d 435, 437 J., concurring court 3d or v. that at the (Stuart, W a s h i n g t o n Mut. n.2 Bank, F.A. (Ala. 2009), q u o t i n g Snell, 718 6¬ 'is deprived action, So. (quoting T e n n e s s e e Bank, N.A. (See, trial 'is void.'"'" specially) 24 that S e p t e m b e r 14 d e c i s i o n , § So. 2d in 20, 27 i n the r e s u l t ) ) . Rather, § 6¬ 5-440 " ' c o n s t i t u t e s an a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e , and if that defense i s not r a i s e d by the d e f e n d a n t i n a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s , B e n s o n v. C i t y o f S c o t t s b o r o , 286 A l a . 315, 317, 239 So. 2d 747, 748-49 (1970) ( s t a t i n g t h a t t h e d e f e n s e must be r a i s e d by a "plea in abatement," the p r o c e d u r a l p r e d e c e s s o r of the motion to d i s m i s s ) , i t i s waived. C h a p p e l l v. B o y k i n , 41 A l a . App. 137, 141, 127 So. 2d 636, 639 (1960).'" R e g i o n s Bank v. Reed, 60 So. Veteto 2001)). v. Yocum, Like 793 other So. 2d 3d 868, 814, affirmative a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e b a s e d on 884 815 n. 1 defenses, (Ala. (quoting Civ. however, § 6-5-440 i s w a i v e d , r e v i v e d u n d e r c e r t a i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s . See 2d a t ( A l a . 2010) App. if an i t can be R e g i o n s Bank, 60 So. 884. In the p r e s e n t c a s e , on J u l y 23, 3 2010, the mother filed 2100647 i n the Elmore C i r c u i t Court a motion t o d i s m i s s or t o t r a n s f e r the postdivorce proceeding ("the father's p r o c e e d i n g " ) f i l e d b y D a v i d Jeremy V e s t c o u r t . See Ex p a r t e V e s t , 2011). Although postdivorce ("the f a t h e r " ) i n t h a t 68 So. 3d 881, 883 ( A l a . C i v . App. she a s s e r t e d i n t h a t m o t i o n t h a t t h e f a t h e r ' s postdivorce proceeding was due t o be d i s m i s s e d o r t r a n s f e r r e d because proceeding Mobile a postdivorce C i r c u i t Court she h a d commenced ("the m o t h e r ' s p o s t d i v o r c e i n the proceeding") was a l r e a d y p e n d i n g when t h e f a t h e r commenced h i s p o s t d i v o r c e proceeding, she n e i t h e r c i t e d § 6-5-440 t o t h e E l m o r e Court i n support asserted by constituted of that a s s e r t i o n nor asserted that the c l a i m the a father compulsory postdivorce proceeding him Circuit in his postdivorce counterclaim in proceeding the mother's a n d , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t § 6-5-440 from a s s e r t i n g t h a t c l a i m i n h i s p o s t d i v o r c e barred proceeding. 2 T h e supreme c o u r t h a s h e l d t h a t R u l e 1 3 ( a ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., w h i c h g o v e r n s c o m p u l s o r y c o u n t e r c l a i m s , when r e a d i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h § 6-5-440, makes t h e d e f e n d a n t w i t h a compulsory c o u n t e r c l a i m i n the f i r s t - f i l e d a c t i o n a p l a i n t i f f i n t h a t a c t i o n f o r p u r p o s e s o f § 6-5-440. See Ex p a r t e Breman L a k e V i e w R e s o r t , L.P., 729 So. 2d 849, 851 ( A l a . 1999) . "Thus, t h e d e f e n d a n t s u b j e c t t o t h e [ c o m p u l s o r y ] c o u n t e r c l a i m r u l e who commences a n o t h e r a c t i o n h a s v i o l a t e d t h e p r o h i b i t i o n i n § 6-5-440 a g a i n s t m a i n t a i n i n g two a c t i o n s f o r t h e same cause." I d . 2 4 2100647 68 So. 3d a t 885. After 23, the Elmore C i r c u i t Court denied 2010, m o t i o n to dismiss t h e mother's J u l y o r t o t r a n s f e r , t h e m o t h e r , on November 8, 2010, p e t i t i o n e d t h i s c o u r t f o r a w r i t o f mandamus d i r e c t i n g t h e Elmore C i r c u i t Court t o vacate i t s order denying h e r J u l y 23, 2010, m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s o r t o t r a n s f e r . 68 So. 3d a t 882-84. The m o t h e r a s s e r t e d as one o f t h e g r o u n d s o f h e r November 18, 2010, mandamus p e t i t i o n t h a t t h e c l a i m t h e f a t h e r had asserted i n h i s postdivorce proceeding constituted a compulsory c o u n t e r c l a i m i n t h e mother's p o s t d i v o r c e and, proceeding t h e r e f o r e , t h a t § 6-5-440 b a r r e d h i m f r o m a s s e r t i n g t h a t claim i n h i s postdivorce However, we d e n i e d petition proceeding. 68 So. 3d a t 884. t h e m o t h e r ' s November 18, 2010, mandamus i n s o f a r as i t was b a s e d on t h a t g r o u n d b e c a u s e t h e m o t h e r h a d n e i t h e r c i t e d § 6-5-440 t o t h e E l m o r e C i r c u i t C o u r t nor asserted to that court that the claim father i n h i s postdivorce proceeding asserted by t h e c o n s t i t u t e d a compulsory c o u n t e r c l a i m i n t h e mother's p o s t d i v o r c e proceeding. 68 So. 3d a t 885. A f t e r we d e n i e d petition, t h e m o t h e r ' s November 18, 2010, mandamus t h e mother filed two 5 motions i n the father's 2100647 postdivorce proceeding; one o f t h e m o t i o n s was Motion to Dismiss," and Motion to Dismiss." As t h e o t h e r was one of the titled titled " S e c o n d Renewed grounds of those t h e m o t h e r a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e c l a i m t h e f a t h e r had his postdivorce counterclaim therefore, proceeding in that the § constituted mother's the those motions outside the with, among other pleadings that postdivorce proceeding ("the On A p r i l 13, stating: 2011, the pursuant Rule to On a writ vacate April of 14, dispositive or 12(b)[, Ala. filed motion other R. that i n the (summary P.]) was father's pleadings"). dispositive Civ. supported an order judgment, motion filed not by [the court for denied." 2011, mandamus its April been matter matter o u t s i d e the pleadings, mother] i s hereby The m o t h e r things, and, from a s s e r t i n g the Elmore C i r c u i t Court e n t e r e d "Renewed j u d g m e n t on had compulsory proceeding father that claim i n h i s postdivorce proceeding. motions, asserted i n a postdivorce 6-5-440 b a r r e d "Renewed directing 2011, the order. Elmore Court to had "Renewed M o t i o n t o D i s m i s s " and " S e c o n d Renewed M o t i o n t o D i s m i s s " w i t h t h e m a t t e r o u t s i d e the her motions t i t l e d 6 Because Circuit (1) t h e m o t h e r supported 13, the mother p e t i t i o n e d t h i s 2100647 p l e a d i n g s and (2) t h e E l m o r e C i r c u i t C o u r t , motions, d i d not expressly outside the converted pleadings, decline those i n r u l i n g on t h o s e to consider motions were the matter automatically t o m o t i o n s f o r a summary j u d g m e n t . See P h i l l i p s AmSouth Bank, 833 So. 2d 29, 31 ( A l a . 2002) . I n P h i l l i p s , supreme c o u r t v. the stated: "'[W]here matters outside the pleadings are c o n s i d e r e d on a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s , t h e m o t i o n i s c o n v e r t e d i n t o a m o t i o n f o r summary j u d g m e n t ... r e g a r d l e s s o f i t s d e n o m i n a t i o n and t r e a t m e n t by t h e t r i a l c o u r t . ' B o l e s v. B l a c k s t o c k , 484 So. 2d 1077, 1079 ( A l a . 1986) . I n d e e d , u n l e s s t h e t r i a l court expressly declines to consider the extraneous material, i t s conclusions may be c o n s t r u e d to include t h e e x t r a n e o u s m a t e r i a l . C f . Ex parte L i b e r t y N a t ' l L i f e I n s . Co., 825 So. 2d 758, 763 n. 1 ( A l a . 2002) ( t r i a l c o u r t ' s e x p r e s s refusal to consider extraneous material constituted an exclusion)." 833 So. 2d a t 31. When t h e mother filed those motions for a summary j u d g m e n t , she h a d w a i v e d h e r a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e b a s e d on § 6¬ 5-440 b y f a i l i n g t o a s s e r t i t i n t h e J u l y 23, 2010, m o t i o n t o dismiss transfer or postdivorce to proceeding, she see had filed Regions in Bank, the supra, father's and an a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e t h a t h a s b e e n w a i v e d c a n n o t be r e v i v e d b y raising and l i t i g a t i n g i t i n a summary-judgment 7 proceeding, 2100647 see R e c t o r v. 2001) ("[A]n Better Houses, affirmative I n c . , 820 defense the So. 2d 75, defendant 79 (Ala. has waived c a n n o t be r e v i v e d by t h e f a c t t h a t i t i s r a i s e d and litigated i n a summary-judgment p r o c e e d i n g . " ) . M o r e o v e r , materials before us do not indicate that the t h e m o t h e r had revived that a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e i n any o t h e r manner b e f o r e a s s e r t i n g i t as a ground of her motions f o r a summary j u d g m e n t . Consequently, we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e m o t h e r h a d w a i v e d h e r a f f i r m a t i v e based on § 6-5-440 and h a d Circuit not r e v i v e d i t b e f o r e the Court denied her motions therefore, that the Elmore defense Elmore f o r a summary j u d g m e n t Circuit Court did not and, err in d e n y i n g t h o s e m o t i o n s i n s o f a r as t h e y were b a s e d on § 6-5-440. The m o t h e r a l s o a r g u e s t h a t she i s e n t i t l e d mandamus c o m p e l l i n g t h e April 13, 2011, judgment because, order she Elmore denying says, Circuit her Court motions the proper venue to a w r i t of to vacate i t s for a summary f o r the claim a s s e r t e d i n the f a t h e r ' s p o s t d i v o r c e proceeding i s the Mobile C i r c u i t C o u r t . S e c t i o n 30-3-5, A l a . Code 1975, determines the p r o p e r venue f o r b o t h t h e m o t h e r ' s p o s t d i v o r c e p r o c e e d i n g and t h e f a t h e r ' s p o s t d i v o r c e p r o c e e d i n g . S e c t i o n 30-3-5 p r o v i d e s : of " N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g any l a w t o t h e c o n t r a r y , venue a l l proceedings f o r p e t i t i o n s or other a c t i o n s 8 2100647 seeking m o d i f i c a t i o n , i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , or enforcement of a f i n a l decree awarding custody of a c h i l d or c h i l d r e n t o a p a r e n t and/or g r a n t i n g v i s i t a t i o n rights, and/or awarding child support, and/or awarding o t h e r expenses i n c i d e n t t o the support of a minor child or children, and/or granting p o s t - m i n o r i t y b e n e f i t s f o r a c h i l d or c h i l d r e n i s c h a n g e d so t h a t venue w i l l l i e i n : (1) t h e o r i g i n a l c i r c u i t c o u r t r e n d e r i n g t h e f i n a l d e c r e e ; o r (2) i n t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t o f t h e c o u n t y where b o t h t h e c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t o r , i n the case of p o s t - m i n o r i t y b e n e f i t s , where t h e most r e c e n t c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t , t h a t parent having custody a t the time of the child's attaining majority, and the c h i l d or c h i l d r e n have r e s i d e d f o r a p e r i o d o f a t l e a s t t h r e e consecutive years immediately preceding the f i l i n g o f t h e p e t i t i o n o r o t h e r a c t i o n . The c u r r e n t o r most r e c e n t c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t s h a l l be a b l e t o c h o o s e t h e p a r t i c u l a r venue as h e r e i n p r o v i d e d , r e g a r d l e s s o f which p a r t y f i l e s the p e t i t i o n or other a c t i o n . " (Emphasis The added.) record establishes the following facts that are m a t e r i a l t o a d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e p r o p e r venue f o r t h e c l a i m asserted i n t h e f a t h e r ' s p o s t d i v o r c e p r o c e e d i n g . The Elmore C i r c u i t C o u r t e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t d i v o r c i n g t h e m o t h e r and t h e father on M a r c h mother primary 20, 2002. physical The custody awarded t h e f a t h e r v i s i t a t i o n . modify t h e d i v o r c e judgment September 7, 2005, and d i v o r c e judgment awarded t h e of the p a r t i e s ' child and The f a t h e r f i l e d a p e t i t i o n t o i n the Elmore C i r c u i t the mother filed an Court answer on to the f a t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n and a p e t i t i o n f o r a r u l e n i s i i n t h e E l m o r e 9 2100647 Circuit Court on September 8, 2005. On O c t o b e r 6, 2006, t h e m o t h e r a n d t h e f a t h e r e n t e r e d i n t o an a g r e e m e n t m o d i f y i n g t h e divorce judgment and r e s o l v i n g subject of 2005 the t h e d i s p u t e s t h a t were t h e postdivorce proceeding. The mother r e m a i n e d t h e c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s ' c h i l d . Sometime b e t w e e n M a r c h 20, 2002, a n d O c t o b e r the parties' October child moved to 6, 2006, t h e m o t h e r a n d Mississippi. Sometime after 6, 2006, t h e f a t h e r moved t o M o b i l e C o u n t y . When t h e mother f i l e d her postdivorce proceeding i n the Mobile C i r c u i t C o u r t on June 10, 2010, she a n d t h e p a r t i e s ' minor c h i l d had resided i n M i s s i s s i p p i f o r the three-year p e r i o d immediately preceding residing the f i l i n g of that proceeding, and t h e f a t h e r was i n Mobile County. Because t h e mother and t h e p a r t i e s ' c h i l d had n o t r e s i d e d in a county consecutive i n Alabama years for a immediately period preceding of at least the f i l i n g three of her p o s t d i v o r c e p r o c e e d i n g i n t h e M o b i l e C i r c u i t C o u r t , § 30-3-5 dictated that the proper proceeding was venue the Elmore f o r the mother's p o s t d i v o r c e Circuit Court, o r i g i n a l c i r c u i t court rendering the f i n a l The fact that the father, which "the [divorce] decree." who was n o t t h e c u s t o d i a l 10 was parent, 2100647 was residing i n Mobile County when t h e mother filed her p o s t d i v o r c e p r o c e e d i n g was i r r e l e v a n t t o t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e p r o p e r venue o f t h e m o t h e r ' s p o s t d i v o r c e p r o c e e d i n g u n d e r § 30-3-5. The father subsequently filed h i s postdivorce p r o c e e d i n g i n t h e E l m o r e C i r c u i t C o u r t , w h i c h was t h e p r o p e r venue f o r that Elmore Circuit motions her proceeding Court under § 30-3-5. d i d not e r r i n denying the the mother's f o r a summary j u d g m e n t i n s o f a r as t h e y were b a s e d contention that the Mobile C i r c u i t venue Therefore, f o r the claim asserted on C o u r t was t h e p r o p e r i n the father's postdivorce proceeding. The mother objection to proceeding pleading he also argues improper by venue omitting filed that such the father waived i n the mother's an objection i n the mother's his postdivorce from postdivorce the first proceeding. However, t h e i s s u e w h e t h e r t h e f a t h e r w a i v e d h i s o b j e c t i o n t o the Mobile mother's Circuit Court postdivorce proceeding w h e t h e r she i s e n t i t l e d Elmore as t h e venue Circuit Court i s irrelevant to a writ t o vacate for litigating to the issue o f mandamus d i r e c t i n g t h e i t sApril 13, 2 0 1 1 , o r d e r d e n y i n g t h e m o t h e r ' s summary-judgment m o t i o n s b e c a u s e , 11 the due t o 2100647 t h e m o t h e r ' s w a i v e r o f h e r a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e b a s e d on § 6-5¬ 440, the father proceeding i s entitled to prosecute i n the Elmore C i r c u i t Court postdivorce separately i n d e p e n d e n t l y o f , t h e mother's p o s t d i v o r c e she his from, and proceeding unless s h o u l d r e v i v e a n d a s s e r t h e r a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e b a s e d on § 6-5-440 i n t h e f u t u r e . See W a s h i n g t o n M u t u a l Bank, 24 So. 3d a t 437 n. 2 ( h o l d i n g t h a t § 6-5-440 does n o t d e p r i v e court of j u r i s d i c t i o n over the s e c o n d - f i l e d the t r i a l a c t i o n or render the s e c o n d - f i l e d a c t i o n v o i d ) ; and R e g i o n s Bank, 60 So. 2d a t 884 ( h o l d i n g t h a t § 6-5-440 i s an a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e t h a t c a n be w a i v e d ) . Thus, any a l l e g e d w a i v e r o f t h e f a t h e r ' s to the Mobile C i r c u i t mother's p o s t d i v o r c e father's the separate Elmore C i r c u i t objection C o u r t as t h e venue f o r l i t i g a t i n g t h e p r o c e e d i n g w o u l d have no e f f e c t and independent p o s t d i v o r c e on t h e proceeding i n C o u r t . I d . Moreover, i f t h e mother should r e v i v e a n d a s s e r t h e r a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e b a s e d on § 6-5-440 in the future, objection to the issue the Mobile whether the f a t h e r Circuit l i t i g a t i n g the mother's p o s t d i v o r c e irrelevant regarding to the Elmore Court as had waived h i s t h e venue f o r p r o c e e d i n g w o u l d s t i l l be Circuit Court's w h e t h e r § 6-5-440 b a r r e d t h e f a t h e r f r o m 12 determination prosecuting 2100647 his postdivorce because, as proceeding noted concurrence by i n the Elmore Justice i n t h e supreme Murdock Circuit Court his special September court's in 14 d e c i s i o n , " [ s ] e c t i o n 6-5-440 does n o t r e q u i r e some i n q u i r y i n t o w h e t h e r an o t h e r w i s e v a l i d o b j e c t i o n t o t h e venue o f an e a r l i e r filed a c t i o n h a s o r h a s n o t been w a i v e d i n t h a t e a r l i e r a c t i o n . " Ex parte Vest, So. 3d at (Murdock, J . , concurring specially). Although t h e mother support of her A p r i l consider Circuit (Ala. court presents additional 14, 2 0 1 1 , mandamus p e t i t i o n , them b e c a u s e she d i d n o t p r e s e n t Court. See Ex p a r t e 2010) ("Because was 502(b)(3), arguments i n presented M & F Bank, i t does with an them t o t h e E l m o r e 58 So. 3d 1 1 1 , 117 not appear t h a t argument we c a n n o t the c i r c u i t concerning Rule [ A l a . R. E v i d . , ] we w i l l n o t c o n s i d e r t h a t argument as a r e a s o n f o r i s s u i n g t h e w r i t o f mandamus."). B e c a u s e t h e m o t h e r h a s f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t she h a s a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t t o t h e w r i t o f mandamus she s e e k s , we deny the mother's petition. See Ex parte A l a b a m a , 931 So. 2d 1, 5-6 ( A l a . 2005) is an e x t r a o r d i n a r y remedy; i t w i l l 13 Children's Hosp. of ("The w r i t o f mandamus n o t be i s s u e d u n l e s s t h e 2100647 petitioner to shows '"'(1) the order a clear sought l e g a l r i g h t i n the p e t i t i o n e r (quoting Ex parte Inverness C o n s t r . Co., 775 So. 2d 153, 156 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n other cases). PETITION DENIED. Pittman, Thomas, a n d M o o r e , J J . , c o n c u r . Thompson, P . J . , c o n c u r s i n the r e s u l t , without 14 writing.

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.