Carter v. City of Haleyville
| Decision Date | 28 July 1995 |
| Citation | 669 So.2d 812 |
| Parties | Fray CARTER, Jr. v. CITY OF HALEYVILLE, et al. 1931626. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Gene Church, Haleyville, for Fray Carter, Jr.
Andrew P. Campbell and Charles M. Elmer of Leitman, Siegal, Payne & Campbell, P.C., Birmingham, for Peerless Landfill Co., Inc.
Samuel L. Masdon of Masdon & Eason, Haleyville, for the City of Haleyville.
The plaintiff, Fray Carter, Jr., a resident of Winston County, appeals from an order of the Winston County Circuit Court dissolving a preliminary injunction that had restrained the City of Haleyville from conveying or leasing the city landfill.
From 1981 to October 1993, the City of Haleyville operated a landfill, located on 99 acres, for which the Alabama Department of Environmental Management ("ADEM") had issued a permit; that landfill received municipal and inert waste from the City of Haleyville, Winston County, and much of Marion County. The City of Haleyville operated the landfill as a party to the Winston County Ten-Year Solid Waste Management Plan.
In the spring of 1993, the City of Haleyville, facing closure of its landfill under new EPA regulations, 1 entered into a contract to sell the Haleyville landfill to Solomon of Nu, Inc., a Kentucky corporation, so that that company could develop a "Subtitle D" landfill. Carter sued on March 2, 1993, seeking a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction prohibiting the City of Haleyville from proceeding with the sale of the landfill. In his complaint for equitable relief, Carter argued that in negotiating with Solomon of Nu, the City of Haleyville had failed to provide the public a notice, and an opportunity for a hearing, concerning the sale of the landfill, and that that failure denied him and the public due process. Following a hearing on the preliminary injunction, the trial court entered a preliminary injunction on March 12, 1993.
On June 8, 1993, Carter filed Count Two of his complaint, alleging that the City had failed to comply with zoning requirements for the Haleyville landfill. After a hearing, the trial court issued a preliminary injunction restraining the City from conveying or contracting to convey the landfill property until zoning regulations were properly complied with.
On August 3, 1993, Carter filed Count Three of his complaint, stating that, among other things, the City had attempted to transfer the landfill property in violation of Ala.Code 1975, § 22-27-48, and in violation of the Winston County Ten-Year Solid Waste Management Plan. Following another hearing, the trial court, on August 19, 1993, issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the City from conveying or leasing the Haleyville landfill, pending further orders of the court. The circuit court stated that the City had failed to comply with the Winston County Ten-Year Solid Waste Management Plan, in which it was a participant. This August 19, 1993, injunction creates the subject matter for this appeal.
In September 14, 1993, the ADEM issued a "Notice of Violation," citing violations of state law and ADEM regulations at the Haleyville landfill. The violations included the failure of the City to comply with its permits by allowing waste at the landfill to be left uncovered and by allowing the emanation of leachate in the southern portion of the landfill. The notice also required the City to respond to these violations within 10 days. The City then declared a state of emergency and, under "Resolution 1100," authorized Haleyville Mayor Larry Gilliland to enter into contracts or leases necessary to correct the violations and to bring the landfill into compliance with ADEM violations.
The Haleyville City Council then elected to "opt out" of the Winston County Ten-Year Solid Waste Management Plan and develop the "City of Haleyville Solid Waste Management Plan." The City then made a proposal ("the Proposal"), under the new City of Haleyville Solid Waste Management Plan, that the City would convey the landfill property and the solid waste disposal permit from the City to the newly created "Haleyville Solid Waste Disposal Authority." The Authority would then regulate and administer solid waste disposal for the City of Haleyville. In addition, the Proposal provided for the Authority to develop and submit a closure plan for the City of Haleyville sanitary landfill, to operate the existing inert landfill, and to construct an additional inert landfill area. The Proposal also provided that the Authority would develop and operate a 1500-tons-per-day Subtitle D municipal solid waste landfill facility on, or adjacent to, the landfill site and would expand the service area to include all counties in the State of Alabama.
In connection with this Proposal, on September 27, 1993, the City signed a letter of intent ("the letter of intent") with Peerless Landfill Company, Inc., a Florida corporation, for Peerless to close the existing landfill and development and to construct and operate a "Subtitle D" municipal solid waste landfill facility.
On September 29, 1993, the City entered into a lease agreement with Peerless for the purpose of remedying the violations at the landfill and for Peerless to perform the functions under the City of Haleyville Waste Management Plan.
On November 17, 1993, the City of Haleyville gave notice in the Northwest Alabamian 2 of a public hearing scheduled to be held on December 21, 1993, for the purpose of accepting public comment on the City of Haleyville Solid Waste Management Plan and considering the Proposal under that plan.
The first part of the notice described the City's decision to opt out of the Winston County Ten-Year Solid Waste Management Plan and to establish its own solid waste management plan:
The second part of the notice concerned the Proposal under the new City of Haleyville Solid Waste Disposal Plan:
On December 21, 1993, a public hearing was held on the plan and the Proposal. Following this hearing, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. City of Birmingham
...whether the trial court misapplied the law to the undisputed facts, applying a de novo standard of review. Carter v. City of Haleyville, 669 So. 2d 812, 815 (Ala. 1995). Here, in reviewing the denial of a summary judgment when the facts are undisputed, we review de novo the trial court's in......
-
Northstar Anesthesia of Ala., LLC v. Noble
...whether the trial court misapplied the law to the undisputed facts, applying a de novo standard of review. Carter v. City of Haleyville, 669 So.2d 812, 815 (Ala.1995). Here, in reviewing the denial of a summary judgment when the facts are undisputed, we review de novo the trial court's inte......
-
Tate v. Water Works & Sewer Bd. of Oxford
...whether the trial court misapplied the law to the undisputed facts, applying a de novo standard of review. Carter v. City of Haleyville, 669 So.2d 812, 815 (Ala.1995). Here, in reviewing the [entry] of a summary judgment when the facts are undisputed, we review de novo the trial court's int......
-
City of Orange Beach v. Duggan
...by governmental action." Brown's Ferry Waste Disposal Ctr., Inc. v. Trent, 611 So.2d 226, 228 (Ala.1992); see also Carter v. City of Haleyville, 669 So.2d 812 (Ala.1995). The United States Supreme Court has held that a procedural-due-process violation that is potentially actionable is not c......