Ex parte Andalusia-Opp Airport Authority. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS (In re: Diamond Concrete & Slabs, LLC v. Andalusia-Opp Airport Authority and Southern Structures Corporation) (Covington Circuit Court: CV-07-73; Civil Appeals : 2100114). Writ Quashed. No Opinion.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Rel: 08/17/2012 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2012 ____________________ 1101399 ____________________ Ex parte Andalusia-Opp Airport Authority PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS (In re: Diamond Concrete & Slabs, LLC v. Andalusia-Opp Airport Authority and Southern Structures Corporation) (Covington Circuit Court, CV-07-73; Court of Civil Appeals, 2100114) MAIN, Justice. WRIT QUASHED. NO OPINION. Malone, C.J., and Woodall and Bolin, JJ., concur. Murdock, J., concurs specially. 1101399 MURDOCK, Justice (concurring specially). We are not presented in this matter with the question whether, under the "law of the case" doctrine, the interlocutory judgment of the trial court on the breach-ofcontract claim asserted by Diamond Concrete & Slabs, LLC, bound the trial court with respect to its adjudication of the other claim pending before it, the prompt-pay-act claim. See Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P. (stating that a judgment "which adjudicates fewer than all the claims ... shall not terminate the action as to any of the claims or parties ..., and the order ... is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims"); Imperial Crown Marketing Corp. v. Wright, 560 So. 2d 1025, 1028 (Ala. 1989) ("Once a court renders a final judgment ... that judgment becomes the conclusive law of the case, subject only to appeal." (Johnstone, J., dissenting) (emphasis added)); Estate of Pruyn v. Axmen Propane, Inc., 354 Mont. 208, 216, 223 P.3d 845, 852 (2009) ("Because [the prior] Opinion and Order did liabilities not of adjudicate all of all the of the parties, disposition of the case ... claims, there rights was no and final [and] we hold that [party's] 2 1101399 law-of-the-case argument is misplaced."); Langevine v. District of Columbia, 106 F.3d 1018, 1023 (D.C. Cir. 1997) ("Interlocutory orders are not subject to the law of the case doctrine and may judgment."). always be reconsidered prior to final If the central premise of the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals as to the "law of the case" remains intact, then so must the Court of Civil Appeals' conclusion based on that premise, namely that Diamond had already established that it had a subcontract with the Andalusia-Opp Airport Authority. See Diamond Concrete & Slab, LLC v. Andalusia-Opp Airport Auth., [Ms. 2100114, Aug. 12, 2011] ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2011). Nor do we have before us the question whether the Airport Authority adequately objected to the instruction of the trial court that "lumped together" the Airport Authority and Southern Structures Corporation for purposes of obtaining a determination by the jury as to whether a contract existed between the Airport Authority and Diamond. 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.
