Greenhill v. Bear Creek Development Authority
Decision Date | 15 January 1988 |
Citation | 519 So.2d 938 |
Parties | Arvil GREENHILL v. BEAR CREEK DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, et al. 86-440. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Curtis M. Simpson, Florence, for appellant.
William M. Bouldin of Guin, Bouldin & Alexander, Russellville, and William Atkinson of Fite, Davis, Atkinson & Bentley, Hamilton, for appellees.
Plaintiff, Arvil Greenhill, appeals from a summary judgment granted in favor of the defendants, Bear Creek Development Authority, Don Sibley, and Farris Taylor. We affirm.
Plaintiff purchased a recreational use permit allowing him to picnic or camp on property subject to the general supervision of the Bear Creek Development Authority (BCDA) (see § 33-15-1, et seq., Ala.Code 1975). He was subsequently arrested for using restricted areas of that property in violation of BCDA rules and regulations, and thereafter he was convicted in the Circuit Court of Franklin County of third degree criminal trespass. The plaintiff did not appeal that conviction. Instead, he later brought this lawsuit against the BCDA; its administrator, Don Sibley; and one of its park rangers, Farris Taylor.
In his complaint, the plaintiff sought damages for the defendants' alleged breach of contract, unlawful arrest, and malicious prosecution (count one); requested a declaratory judgment as to his rights under the recreational use permit (count two); and challenged the validity of his previous criminal conviction (count three). The trial court first granted a summary judgment in favor of the defendants as to count three; thereafter, it held an ore tenus hearing on the plaintiff's request for a declaratory judgment (count two) and entered the following order:
Subsequent to the entry of the declaratory judgment, the trial court granted a summary judgment in favor of the defendants as to count one.
Initially we note that the plaintiff did not appeal from the declaratory judgment. He appealed only from the summary judgment granted to the defendants.
Instead of appealing his criminal conviction, the plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Evans v. Waddell
...entered in the Houston Circuit Court, it is an improper collateral attack on that final judgment. See Greenhill v. Bear Creek. Development Authority, 519 So.2d 938 (Ala.1988); Ex parte Edmondson, 451 So.2d 290 (Ala.1984) . A Rule 60(b), Ala.R.Civ.P., motion filed in the Houston Circuit Cour......
-
McQuinn v. McQuinn
...court in a collateral attack. See, e.g., Smith v. Wiley Sanders Trucking Co., 581 So.2d 1124 (Ala.Civ.App.1991); Greenhill v. Bear Creek Dev. Auth., 519 So.2d 938 (Ala.1988). Neither party in this case requested a modification of the Tennessee judgment's provisions relating to visitation wi......
-
Large v. Hayes By and Through Nesbitt
...the judgment, is immune from collateral attack. Duncan v. Kent, 370 So.2d 288, 290 (Ala.1979); see, also, Greenhill v. Bear Creek Development Authority, 519 So.2d 938 (Ala.1988). In Miller v. Thompson, 209 Ala. 469, 471, 96 So. 481, 482 (1923), the Court " '[A]ny proceeding provided by law ......
-
Jones v. Jones
...later attack in modification proceeding). See also G.P. v. A.A.K., 841 So.2d 1252 (Ala.Civ.App.2002) and Greenhill v. Bear Creek Dev. Auth., 519 So.2d 938 (Ala. 1988). 2. The mother has attached what appears to be a copy of the original divorce judgment as an appendix to her appellate brief......