STATE DEPT. OF REVENUE v. Calhoun

• Decision Date: 25 February 2000
• Citation: 792 So.2d 385
• Parties: STATE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE v. Clay J. CALHOUN. Clay J. Calhoun v. State Department of Revenue.
• Court: Alabama Court of Civil Appeals

792 So.2d 385

STATE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE v. Clay J. CALHOUN.

Clay J. Calhoun v. State Department of Revenue.

2970301.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

February 25, 2000.

Application for Rehearing Denied June 9, 2000.

Certiorari Denied October 13, 2000.

Bill Pryor, atty. gen.; Ron Bowden, chief counsel, Department of Revenue, and asst. atty. gen.; and John J. Breckenridge, asst. counsel, Department of Revenue, and asst. atty. gen., for appellant/cross appellee.

Gregory L. Leatherbury, Jr., and Bryan A. Thames of Hand Arendall, L.L.C., Mobile, for appellee/cross appellant.

Alabama Supreme Court 1991804.

After Remand from the Supreme Court

ROBERTSON, Presiding Judge.

The prior judgment of this court has been affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the cause remanded, by the Supreme Court of Alabama. Ex parte State Department of Revenue, 792 So.2d 380 (Ala.1999). On remand to this court, and in compliance with the Supreme Court's opinion, we reverse the summary judgment in favor of Clay J. Calhoun, and remand the cause for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

YATES, MONROE, CRAWLEY, and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

On Application for Rehearing

ROBERTSON, Presiding Judge.

This court's original opinion of April 24, 1998, did not address whether the trial court's summary judgment was due to be affirmed on the alternative ground of laches, and Calhoun has sought rehearing of this court's February 25, 2000, opinion on remand, again asserting laches. That ground does not support the summary judgment in favor of Calhoun. "[B]y the decided weight of authority, the defense of laches is not available against the State in a suit by it to enforce [a] public right and interest." Sisk v. State ex rel. Smith, 249 Ala. 279, 280, 31 So.2d 84, 85 (1947).

APPLICATION OVERRULED; RULE 39(k) MOTION DENIED.

YATES, MONROE, CRAWLEY, and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.