Eubanks v. McCollum
Decision Date | 01 March 2002 |
Parties | Anthony D. EUBANKS v. W. Hardy McCOLLUM et al. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Anthony Dewayne Eubanks, pro se.
Robert Spence of Crownover, Standridge & Spence, Tuscaloosa, for appellee W. Hardy McCollum.
Bill Pryor, atty. gen., and Richard Trewhella, asst. atty. gen., for appellees Judge L. Scott Coogler, Doris Turner, and Betty Teague.
On December 4, 2000, Anthony D. Eubanks sued W. Hardy McCollum, the chairman of the Tuscaloosa County Commission; Judge L. Scott Coogler, Circuit Judge of the sixth judicial circuit; Doris Turner, the court clerk; George Nassaney, Eubanks's court-appointed attorney; and Betty Teague, the director of central records of the Alabama Department of Corrections, in their individual and official capacities. The complaint was presented as a tort action to redress constitutional violations that occurred when Eubanks remained incarcerated beyond his one-year-and-a-day prison sentence. Eubanks requested monetary damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief.
On January 2, 2001, McCollum filed a Rule 12(b)(6), Ala. R. Civ. P., motion to dismiss. On January 30, 2001, Judge Coogler, Turner, and Teague filed a joint motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for a summary judgment. No appearance or pleading filed by or on behalf of Nassaney appears in the record.
In March 2001, the trial court issued two orders. The first granted McCollum's motion to dismiss, stating: "the Plaintiff's complaint states no claim which may be maintained against Hon. W. Hardy McCollum or the Tuscaloosa County Commission and ... the Defendant is entitled to a Judgment as a matter of law." The second order addressed the motion to dismiss filed by Judge Coogler, Turner, and Teague. The majority of this order is quoted below.
Although neither party has questioned the finality of the trial court's judgment in this case, jurisdictional matters, such as the question whether an appeal is supported by a final judgment, are of such importance that this court takes notice of them ex mero motu. See Wilson v....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
E.S.R., Jr. v. Madison County
...this court, "`jurisdictional issues are of such significance that a court may take notice of them ex mero motu. Eubanks v. McCollum, 828 So.2d 935, 937 (Ala.Civ.App.2002).'" D.V.P. v. T.W.P., 905 So.2d 853, 855 (Ala. Civ.App.2005) (quoting Heaston v. Nabors, 889 So.2d 588, 590 This appeal a......
-
Phillips v. Montoya
...all matters in controversy between all the parties. See McCollough v. Bell, 611 So.2d 383 (Ala. Civ. App. 1992)." Eubanks v. McCollum, 828 So.2d 935, 937 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002). See also Knoedler v. Blinco, 50 So.3d 1047, 1050 (Ala. 2010) (trial court's summary-judgment order left one party'......
-
Ex parte W.L.K.
...adoption. “A final judgment is one that completely adjudicates all matters in controversy between all the parties.” Eubanks v. McCollum, 828 So.2d 935, 937 (Ala.Civ.App.2002). The March 19, 2014, order decided the father's contest to the adoption, but it did not resolve the entire adoption ......
-
Flexicrew Staffing, Inc. v. Champion
...‘A final judgment is one that completely adjudicates all matters in controversy between all the parties.“ ‘....’“Eubanks v. McCollum, 828 So.2d 935, 937 (Ala.Civ.App.2002). (citations omitted).”Adams v. NaphCare, Inc., 869 So.2d 1179, 1181 (Ala.Civ.App.2003). Because the judgment in this ca......