Ex parte Jones
Decision Date | 28 July 2000 |
Citation | 774 So.2d 607 |
Parties | Ex parte Donald JONES. (In re Donald Jones v. Wedgworth Pest Control, Inc.) |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Tom Radney of Radney, Radney & Brown, P.A., Alexander City, for petitioner.
Mitchell E. Gavin, Alexander City, for respondent.
Donald Jones (the "employee") petitions for a writ of mandamus directing Judge Dale Segrest to vacate an injunction prohibiting him from engaging in the pest control business in Tallapoosa and Randolph Counties for two years. This is the second time Jones and his former employer, Wedgworth Pest Control, Inc., have been before this court. See Jones v. Wedgworth Pest Control, Inc., 763 So.2d 261(Ala.Civ.App.2000). In that appeal, this court reversed the judgment of the trial court enforcing a noncompetition agreement between the two parties, because the employer had failed to present the evidence necessary to support enforcement of the agreement.
On remand, the trial court, misunderstanding this court's opinion, held another hearing and took additional testimony concerning the elements required to prove the enforceability of the agreement. That hearing was outside the scope of our remand order.
Walker v. Carolina Mills Lumber Co., 441 So.2d 980, 982 (Ala.Civ.App.1983) (emphasis added in Walker); see also Ex parte Alabama Power Co., 431 So.2d 151, 155 (Ala.1983).
Although our opinion did not order the trial court to enter a judgment in favor of the employee, it clearly stated that the injunction enforcing the noncompetition agreement was reversed, and, in light of that reversal, we pretermitted discussion of the other issues presented. A fair reading of our opinion indicates the injunction was reversed because the employer had failed to meet its burden of proof. We did not instruct the trial court to hold another hearing or indicate that the employer should be allowed to offer additional...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wilkinson v. Wilkinson
...belief that its original decision was correct, its duty on remand was to comply with the mandate in Wilkinson I. See Ex parte Jones, 774 So.2d 607, 608 (Ala.Civ.App. 2000). "`On remand, the issues decided by the appellate court become [the] law of the case and the trial court's duty is to c......
-
Walden v. ES Capital, LLC
...court has the duty to comply with the appellate mandate. Ex parte Alabama Power Co., 431 So.2d 151, 155 (Ala.1983); Ex parte Jones, 774 So.2d 607, 608 (Ala.Civ.App.2000). See also Travis v. Travis, 875 So.2d 1212, 1214 (Ala.Civ.App.2003). See also Parsons Steel, Inc. v. Beasley, 600 So.2d 2......
-
Willadean Walden & Crooked Creek Properties Inc. v. ES Capital, LLC
...has the duty to comply with the appellate mandate. Ex parte Alabama Power Co . , 431 So. 2d 151, 155 (Ala. 1983); Ex parte Jones, 774 So. 2d 607, 608 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000). See also Travis v. Travis, 875 So. 2d 1212, 1214 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003). See also Parsons Steel, Inc. v. Beasley, 600 S......
-
Ex parte WTM
...II that the trial court apply a best-interests standard. That mandate therefore is the law of this case. See, e.g., Ex parte Jones, 774 So.2d 607 (Ala.Civ.App.2000). 3. V.T. testified that, at the time, she thought her sister would be approved for custody and that her sister would have been......