Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Ex Parte Save Our Streams, Inc.
Citations: 541 So. 2d 549; 1989 Ala. LEXIS 155; 1989 WL 36152Docket: 88-389
Court: Supreme Court of Alabama; March 30, 1989; Alabama; State Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of Alabama addressed procedural requirements for seeking certiorari review under Rule 39, A.R.App. P. The court noted that the organization of Rule 39 is not intuitive, leading to potential confusion for practitioners. Specifically, it highlighted the necessity of compliance with Rule 39(k) when filing an application for rehearing in an intermediate appellate court to present additional or corrected facts. The court emphasized that failure to follow these requirements results in the denial of certiorari review. To secure review by the Supreme Court after an intermediate appellate court's judgment, the following steps must be taken: 1. A petition for writ of certiorari can only be filed after the court of appeals has denied an application for rehearing. This application must be submitted within 14 days of the judgment, accompanied by a new brief. 2. If the petitioner disagrees with the facts in the court of appeals' opinion, they must file a motion to add or correct facts during the rehearing application. If denied, the petitioner can inform the Supreme Court and include the corrected facts in their petition. Noncompliance with these steps, particularly with Rule 39(k), means any conflicting fact statements will be disregarded, and the Supreme Court will not review cases where the intermediate court has issued a judgment without an opinion. The court reaffirmed its commitment to enforcing these procedural rules uniformly. If an intermediate appellate court issues a judgment without an opinion, this Court can only consider the facts presented in a Rule 39(k) motion, as no record exists in this Court and prior petitions and briefs have not undergone review. Consequently, the Court cannot accept facts from those documents. This principle underscores the importance of the Rule 39(k) motion, especially when seeking review of 'no opinion' cases. While not mandated by appellate procedure rules, it would be beneficial for petitions to include copies of the rehearing application and Rule 39(k) motion from the lower court, along with its rulings. This two-step process is essential for perfecting the record for review. Attorneys are encouraged to familiarize themselves with certiorari review mechanics and consult recommended references and specific case law to navigate the process effectively. The Court does not comment on the merits of the case as the petitioner failed to comply with Rule 39(k), thereby barring review of the issues. The writ for review is denied.