Chesnut v. Bd. of Zoning Adjustment (Ex parte Chesnut)
Decision Date | 22 January 2016 |
Docket Number | 1140731. |
Citation | 208 So.3d 624 |
Parties | Ex parte Richard E. CHESNUT and Betty B. Chesnut. (In re Richard E. Chesnut and Betty B. Chesnut v. Board Of Zoning Adjustment, City of Huntsville. Richard E. Chesnut and Betty B. Chesnut v. City of Huntsville, Denton–Niemitz Realty, LLC, and Guild Building and Remodeling, LLC) |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Richard E. Chesnut of Chesnut & Chesnut, Huntsville; and R. Patrick Chesnut of Ables, Baxter & Parker, P.C., Huntsville, for petitioners.
Allen L. Anderson and Allison B. Chandler of F&B Law Firm, P.C., Huntsville, for City of Huntsville and Board of Zoning Adjustment, City of Huntsville.
Jonathan D. Watson, Decatur, for Denton–Niemitz Realty, LLC, and Guild Building & Remodeling, LLC.
Richard E. Chesnut and Betty B. Chesnut petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari seeking review of the Court of Civil Appeals' opinion affirming the Madison Circuit Court's summary judgments in favor of the City of Huntsville ("the City"), the Board of Zoning Adjustment of the City of Huntsville, Denton–Niemitz Realty, LLC, and Guild Building & Remodeling, LLC. See Chesnut v. Board of Zoning Adjustment, 208 So.3d 609 (Ala.Civ.App.2015).
The Court of Civil Appeals set out the procedural history as follows:
The Court of Civil Appeals first addressed the appeal in case no. 2140043, the civil action, and whether there was a final judgment in that the summary judgment did not address the counterclaims asserted by Denton–Niemitz Realty and Guild Builders (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the builders"). A month after the March 14, 2014, summary judgment was entered, the builders filed a notice of dismissal of their counterclaims pursuant to Rule 41, Ala. R. Civ. P. The Court of Civil Appeals concluded that the summary judgment was final, reasoning:
The Court of Civil Appeals then turned to the merits of case no. 2140043, the appeal from the civil action, setting out the following facts:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Berry v. State
...of a criminal offense, nor do those cases persuade this Court to read § 15-10-3(a)(6) in the same way Berry does.In Ex parte Chesnut, 208 So. 3d 624, 640 (Ala. 2016), the Alabama Supreme Court recognized the following fundamental principles of statutory construction:" ‘It is this Court's re......
-
Hubbard v. State (Ex parte Hubbard)
...help in construing an ambiguous statute, courts consider how the statute has been interpreted by government agencies. Ex parte Chesnut, 208 So. 3d 624, 640 (Ala. 2016). This principle is especially applicable when the relevant agency has been empowered to issue interpretive opinions providi......
-
Lead Educ. Found. v. Ala. Educ. Ass'n
...under § 16-6F-6(a)(1) to become an authorizer, it cannot consider applications deemed denied under § 16-6F-6(e).In Ex parte Chesnut, 208 So.3d 624, 640 (Ala. 2016), this Court held:"[A] reviewing court will accord an interpretation placed on a statute or an ordinance by an administrative ag......
-
Phillips v. Montoya
...McDonald, 985 So.2d 914, 919 (Ala. 2007) (quoting Equity Res. Mgmt., Inc. v. Vinson, 723 So.2d 634, 636 (Ala. 1998) )." Ex parte Chesnut, 208 So.3d 624, 635 (Ala. 2016).Phillips specifically argues that the first element of the doctrine of res judicata was not met because, he says, a defaul......