 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Wix Corp. v. Davis9/16/2005
on Corp., 672 So. 2d 497, 499 (Ala. 1995).
Reiterating the third element quoted above, this court stated in Ex parte Amerigas, 855 So. 2d 544 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003), that " review by mandamus is not appropriate where the petitioner has another adequate remedy, such as an appeal." Id. at 546. This court further stated:
"'"The rules of law applicable to the case are simple and well settled. The writ of mandamus will lie from a superior to an inferior or subordinate court, in a proper case, to compel it to hear and decide a controversy of which it has jurisdiction; or, where the cause has been heard, to compel such inferior court to render judgment or enter a decree in the given case. But its use is not warranted to direct what particular judgment shall be rendered in a pending cause, nor is it the proper function of such remedial writ to re-examine, or correct errors in any judgment or decree so rendered. 'The rule applies to judicial as well as to ministerial acts, but it does not apply at all to a judicial act to correct an error, as where the act has been erroneously performed. If the duty is unperformed, and it be judicial in its character, the mandate will be to the judge directing him to exercise his judicial discretion or judgment, without any direction as to the manner in which it shall be done; or if it be ministerial, the mandamus will direct the specific act to be performed.' Ex parte Newman, U.S. 152, 14 Wall. 152, 169, 20 L.Ed. 877 [(1871)]; High on Extr. Rem. ยงยง 150-152, 266; Ex parte Schmidt, 62 Ala. 252 [(1878)]; Ex parte Mahone, 30 Ala. 49 [(1857)]. The principle, of course, universally prevails, that in no event will the writ ever be awarded where full and adequate relief can be had by appeal, writ of error, or otherwise."'"
Ex parte Amerigas, 855 So. 2d at 547 (quoting State v. Cobb, 288 Ala. 675, 678, 264 So. 2d 523, 526 (1972) (quoting in turn State v. Williams, 69 Ala. 311, 316 (1881))) (some emphasis original; some emphasis added). In short, " andamus should not issue '"to re-examine or correct errors in a judgment."'" Ex parte Amerigas, 855 So. 2d at 547 (quoting State v. Cobb, 288 Ala. at 678, 264 So. 2d at 526).
Citing Homes of Legend, Inc. v. O'Neal, 855 So. 2d 536 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003), Wix argues that the circuit court's October 2004 order fails to satisfy the requirement of finality necessary for appeal. We disagree.
In Homes of Legend, the employee filed a motion in the trial court during the pendency of his underlying claim for workers' compensation benefits; the motion sought a determination as to whether his former employer or his current employer was to be responsible for medical treatments to be received during the pendency of the litigation: "O'Neal filed a motion to compel Homes of Legend, or in the alternative, Amerigas, to pay for his medical treatment for his alleged injuries while the issue of liability was being decided." 855 So. 2d at 537 (emphasis added). Accordingly, the resulting trial-court order with which this court was concerned in Homes of Legend was entered pending the eventual outcome of the employee's underlying workers' compensation claim. It was in this context that this court concluded that that order was not a final order from which an appeal would lie. Id. at 537-38.
In the present case, however, all of Davis's claims for all injuries related to the events of September 20, 1996 -- other than Davis's claim for medical treatment for his heart condition -- were resolved by means of an agreement between the parties and a court order approving that agreement in February 2000. The only issue remaining to be resolved at the time of the entry of the circuit court's October 2004 order was th
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Alabama Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|