Ex Parte Howell Engineering and Surveying
Decision Date | 15 December 2006 |
Docket Number | No. 1050579.,1050579. |
Citation | 981 So.2d 413 |
Parties | Ex parte HOWELL ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, INC. (In re Crown Castle USA, Inc. v. Howell Engineering and Surveying, Inc.). |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Gregory A. Kennemer and R. Leland Lesley, Birmingham; and Winthrop E. Johnson, Montgomery, for petitioner.
Susan S. Wagner and Christopher C. Haug of Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, Birmingham, for respondent.
Howell Engineering and Surveying, Inc. ("HES"), sued Crown Castle USA, Inc. ("Crown Castle"), and Gloria Brown, a former employee of HES who had also performed work for Crown Castle. The case was tried before a jury; it rendered a verdict in favor of HES and against Crown Castle and Brown and awarded damages. The trial court entered a judgment on the verdict. Crown Castle and Brown appealed, and this Court transferred the appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals pursuant to § 12-2-7(6), Ala.Code 1975. Brown's appeal was dismissed by agreement of the parties. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the judgment against Crown Castle, holding that the contract at issue in this case violated § 8-1-1, Ala.Code 1975, and was therefore void. Crown Castle USA, Inc. v. Howell Engineering & Surveying, Inc., [Ms. 2040076, August 19, 2005] 981 So.2d 400 (Ala.Civ.App.2005). HES then petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari, and we granted certiorari review.
The Court of Civil Appeals stated the facts as follows in its opinion:
Crown Castle, 981 So.2d at 403-04 (footnote omitted).
The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment as to the breach-of-contract claim and remanded the case with instructions that the trial court enter a judgment in favor of Crown Castle.1 Relying upon Dyson Conveyor Maintenance, Inc. v. Young & Vann Supply Co., 529 So.2d 212 (Ala.1988); and Defco, Inc. v. Decatur Cylinder, Inc., 595 So.2d 1329 (Ala.1992), the Court of Civil Appeals held that the no-hire provision in the A & E Agreement was void under § 8-1-1, Ala. Code 1975,2 because HES did not have a concomitant noncompetition agreement with Brown.
In its petition for a writ of certiorari, HES first contended that the Court of Civil Appeals' holding that the no-hire provision was void because HES did not have a noncompetition agreement with Brown conflicts with this Court's holding in Southeast Cancer Network, P.C. v. DCH Healthcare Authority, 869 So.2d 452, 456 (Ala.2003). We held in Southeast Cancer that a partial restraint of trade does not fall within the conduct condemned by § 8-1-1. HES argues that the no-hire provision was only a partial restraint of trade in that it did not prevent Brown from rendering engineering services for employers other than Crown Castle. Thus, according to HES, there is no basis upon which to declare the no-hire provision void.
HES next contended that the Court of Civil Appeals' holding that Crown Castle had standing to challenge the no-hire provision also conflicts with Southeast Cancer, in which this Court questioned whether one of the parties had standing to invoke § 8-1-1 but did not reach that issue, deciding the case on another ground. Although the proper ground for seeking certiorari review of the standing issue would have been Rule 39(a)(1)(C)—the material question is one of first impression—rather than conflict because the issue of standing was not decided in Southeast Cancer, we nevertheless granted the writ as to this issue because the question of standing goes to our subject-matter jurisdiction.
Finally, HES contended that the Court of Civil Appeals' refusal to hold that Crown Castle was equitably estopped from asserting the invalidity of the no-hire provision conflicts with Pierce v. Hand, Arendall, Bedsole, Greaves & Johnston, 678 So.2d 765 (Ala.1996), in which this Court recognized that, on proper proof, a party could be equitably estopped from asserting § 8-1-1.
This Court recently discussed the appropriate standard of review to be applied to the question of standing.
"The standard of review applicable to a determination of standing was accurately set forth by Judge Crawley in Medical Association of the State of Alabama v. Shoemake, 656 So.2d 863, 865 (Ala.Civ.App.1995) ( ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Carr v. International Refining & Mfg. Co.
... ... See Ex parte International Refining & Mfg. Co., 972 So.2d 784 (Ala.2007) ( ... sold, inspected or consulted regarding the design, engineering, manufacturing, production, distribution and/or warnings associated with" ... See, e.g., Ex parte Howell Eng'g & Surveying, Inc., 981 So.2d 413, 423 (Ala.2006) ("Because we hold ... ...
-
Carr v. International Refining & Manufacturing Company, No. 1070770 (Ala. 11/13/2008)
... ... See Ex parte International Refining & Mfg. Co. , 972 So. 2d 784 (Ala. 2007)(" ... sold, inspected or consulted regarding the design, engineering, manufacturing, production, distribution and/or warnings ... associated ... See, e.g. , Ex parte Howell Eng'g & Surveying, Inc. , 981 So. 2d 413, 423 (Ala. 2006) ("Because we ... ...
-
F.S. v. D.D. (Ex parte R.D.)
... ... Ex parte Howell Eng'g & Surveying, Inc. , 981 So. 2d 413, 419 (Ala. 2006). When a party without standing purports ... ...
-
Exxon Mobil v. Ala. Dept. of Conservation
... ... Co., 875 So.2d 1143, 1152 (Ala.2003)." ... Ex parte" Howell Eng'g & Surveying, Inc., 981 So.2d 413, 418 (Ala.2006) ... \xC2" ... Arthur St. C. Dunstan, dean of the Electrical Engineering Department of the Alabama Polytechnic Institute (now Auburn University), ... ...
-
Alabama. Practice Text
..., Dyson Conveyor v. Young & Vann Supply, 529 So. 2d 212 (Ala. 1988), overruled on other grounds by Ex parte Howell Eng’g & Surveying, 981 So. 2d 413 (Ala. 2006); Pinzone v. Papa’s Wings, Inc., 72 So. 3d 620, 624-25 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010) (“A person who has not executed or signed the contract......