author: TINDELL, J., FOR THE COURT:

text:
    Jeremy Chad NOWELL a/k/a Jeremy C. Nowell a/k/a Chad Nowell, Appellant v. STATE of Mississippi, Appellee
    NO. 2016-KA-01778-COA
    Court of Appeals of Mississippi.
    May 1, 2018
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER, BY: GEORGE T. HOLMES, JACKSON
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, BY: LAURA HOGAN TEDDER, JACKSON
    BEFORE LEE, C.J., BARNES AND TINDELL, JJ.
   TINDELL, J., FOR THE COURT:

¶ 1. A Neshoba County jury convicted Jeremy Nowell of possession of at least two grams but less than ten grams of methamphetamine. See Miss. Code Ann. § 41-29-139(c)(1)(C) (Rev. 2013). On appeal, Nowell argues the circuit court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence seized at the time of his arrest. Finding no error, we affirm Nowell's conviction.

FACTS

¶ 2. While on patrol in an unmarked police car on February 28, 2014, Officer Mark Gore of the Philadelphia Police Department initiated a traffic stop after he observed a seatbelt violation. During the traffic stop, Officer Gore discovered two pouches containing methamphetamine. Officer Gore testified that the first pouch fell from the pant leg of Nowell, the vehicle's passenger, and that the second pouch sat in plain view inside the car within arm's reach of the passenger-side area. A grand jury indicted Nowell for possession of at least two grams but less than ten grams of methamphetamine. At the beginning of Nowell's trial, the defense moved to suppress the evidence seized during the traffic stop.

¶ 3. During the suppression hearing, Officer Gore testified that he glanced into a car driving alongside him and noticed that neither the driver nor the passenger was wearing a seatbelt. Officer Gore stated he could clearly see inside the other car because his view was unobstructed. He also testified that it was about 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. in the afternoon and that there was plenty of daylight. Officer Gore pulled over the vehicle, which was driven by Meagan Stovall. Nowell sat in the car's front passenger seat. Neither Stovall nor Nowell owned the car. Instead, the car belonged to a friend of Stovall's named Ricky Stevens.

¶ 4. As Officer Gore approached the vehicle, he noticed that Nowell "had raised up in the seat in a bowed[-]type [position]" that allowed Officer Gore to see Nowell's head, shoulders, arms, and waist. Officer Gore testified that Nowell held "what appeared to be a glass pipe sticking out of something[,]" and he watched as Nowell stuck the pipe down the front of his pants. Officer Gore asked Nowell to exit the vehicle, and he explained to Nowell what he had seen. Officer Gore testified that Nowell became nervous, began talking more quickly and crossing his legs, and kept glancing at his feet. Officer Gore further testified that, during the conversation, several items fell from Nowell's pant leg and onto the ground in plain view. The items included a pouch, the glass pipe, and a clear plastic bag that contained a crystal-like substance. Based on his training and experience, Officer Gore believed the items constituted a controlled substance and drug paraphernalia. Officer Gore retrieved the items and then handcuffed and searched Nowell.

¶ 5. After securing Nowell, Officer Gore glanced through the open car door and observed a second pouch in plain view. Officer Gore testified that the pouch was "probably half on [Nowell's] seat and half on the middle part" of the car and that Nowell could even have been sitting on the pouch. Officer Gore seized the second pouch, which contained an electronic scale and another plastic bag with the same crystal-like substance.

¶ 6. For the purposes of the suppression hearing only, Nowell also testified about the events that occurred during the traffic stop. According to Nowell, the day of the arrest was his first time inside the car, and he stated he had only been in the car for about twenty minutes when Officer Gore initiated the traffic stop. Nowell testified that both he and Stovall were wearing their seatbelts when Officer Gore detained them. Nowell admitted that the first pouch containing the glass pipe and the plastic bag fell out of the bottom of his pants while he was speaking with Officer Gore. With regard to the second pouch, Nowell agreed that it was sitting in plain view inside the car and that it was within arm's reach of the passenger seat. However, contrary to Officer Gore's testimony that the pouch was sitting halfway on Nowell's seat and halfway on the middle part of the car, Nowell stated that the second pouch was actually sitting entirely on the center console by the vehicle's gear shift.

¶ 7. Based on Officer Gore's testimony about the seatbelt violation he observed, the circuit court found that probable cause existed for the traffic stop. The circuit court further determined that no impermissible search occurred that resulted in the discovery of the first pouch. In addition, the circuit court found the second pouch was in plain view inside a car to which Nowell possessed no ownership claim. The circuit court therefore denied the defense's motion to suppress.

¶ 8. Following the suppression hearing, Officer Gore testified again, this time in the jury's presence. After Officer Gore finished, the defense moved for a second suppression hearing related to an oral statement Nowell gave to the State's next witness, Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics agent K.C. Dotter. The defense argued the circuit court should suppress any evidence about the oral statement because Nowell was under the influence of methamphetamine at the time he made the statement.

¶ 9. During the second suppression hearing, Agent Dotter testified that he interviewed Nowell on the day of the arrest after Nowell signed a form to waive his Miranda rights. Agent Dotter testified that he used no promises or threats to induce Nowell's waiver and that Nowell did not appear to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time he signed the waiver. Agent Dotter further stated that, had Nowell appeared incapacitated, he would have ended the interview. According to Agent Dotter, Nowell stated during the interview that the methamphetamine belonged to him rather than to Stovall.

¶ 10. The State called Officer Gore back to the witness stand during the second suppression hearing. Although Officer Gore had no way to test Nowell at the time of the arrest, Officer Gore stated that Nowell did not appear to be under the influence of drugs during the traffic stop. While Nowell became fidgety after Officer Gore explained that he had seen Nowell stick the pipe down his pants, Officer Gore testified that Nowell had initially appeared relaxed and calm when he approached the vehicle.

¶ 11. For the limited purpose of the second suppression hearing only, Nowell also retook the witness stand. Nowell testified that he remembered the traffic stop and being interviewed by Agent Dotter several hours after his arrest. However, Nowell stated he had taken methamphetamine about an hour prior to his arrest and that he was still under the drug's influence during the interview. Nowell therefore claimed he could not recall exactly what he had told Agent Dotter and that he could not remember reading the waiver form or being informed of the document's substance.

¶ 12. In ruling on the defense's motion to suppress Nowell's oral statement, the circuit court noted that, during the first suppression hearing, Nowell had testified in "great detail" about the events immediately preceding the traffic stop. The circuit court also found Nowell offered no testimony that, during his interview with Agent Dotter, he ever (1) asked for the interview to stop, (2) requested a lawyer, or (3) expressed confusion over what was happening. The circuit court instead found that Nowell "confirmed that he executed his signature" on the waiver form.

¶ 13. Continuing his analysis, the circuit judge stated:

I find that there is substantial evidence developed through the testimony of the two officers and ... through the testimony of Mr. Nowell himself as to the events as he [ (Nowell) ] recollected them that day with quite a bit of specificity and detail. I believe this was a voluntary, knowing[,] and intelligent waiver of the Miranda rights. There has been, in my opinion, no scintilla of evidence developed that this statement was the result of any threat or coercion. I see no evidence whatsoever of it being involuntary, but rather[,] it's my impression that the State ... has made a prima facie case as to voluntariness and the knowing waiver of Miranda rights, and under the totality of the circumstances, I find that it was a voluntary statement[.]

Based on these findings, the circuit court denied the defense's motion to suppress the evidence regarding Nowell's oral statement to Agent Dotter.

¶ 14. When Nowell's trial resumed after the second suppression hearing, the State called Agent Dotter to testify. Agent Dotter recounted his interview with Nowell, including Nowell's oral statement that the methamphetamine belonged to him rather than to Stovall. Dotter testified that the pouches Officer Gore seized contained a crystal-like substance. Agent Dotter submitted the substance to the Mississippi Forensics Laboratory, which identified it as methamphetamine. A forensic scientist from the forensics lab testified that the first pouch contained 1.921 grams of methamphetamine and that the second pouch contained 6.699 grams of methamphetamine, for a total of 8.620 grams of methamphetamine.

¶ 15. After the State rested, the defense unsuccessfully moved for a directed verdict. The defense then rested its case-in-chief without calling any witnesses. After considering the evidence and testimony, the jury found Nowell guilty of possession of at least two grams but less than ten grams of methamphetamine. The circuit court subsequently sentenced Nowell to eight years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, with six years to serve, two years suspended, and two years of supervised probation. The circuit court also ordered Nowell to pay a $2,000 fine. Following his conviction and sentencing, Nowell filed an unsuccessful motion for a new trial. Aggrieved, Nowell appeals.

DISCUSSION

¶ 16. On appeal, Nowell admits that Officer Gore had probable cause to arrest him after Officer Gore observed Nowell try to hide drug paraphernalia in his pants. Nowell also raises no challenge to Officer Gore's search of the pouch that fell from Nowell's pant leg or seizure of the methamphetamine discovered inside the pouch. Nowell contends, however, that "since [he] was already under arrest[ ] and the vehicle was [neither] his [nor] under his exclusive control," Officer Gore illegally searched and seized the second pouch found inside the vehicle. As a result of this alleged illegal search and seizure, Nowell argues the circuit court erroneously denied his motion to suppress all evidence related to the second pouch and the 6.699 grams of methamphetamine it contained.

¶ 17. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, this Court only reverses a trial court's denial of a motion to suppress if the trial court manifestly erred or ruled contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Hill v. State , 226 So.3d 1251, 1255-56 (¶ 16) (Miss. Ct. App. 2017) ; Austin v. State , 72 So.3d 565, 568 (¶ 8) (Miss. Ct. App. 2011). With regard to unreasonable searches and seizures, this Court recently stated:

As a general rule, our state and federal Constitutions prohibit searches without a valid warrant unless an exception applies. The State bears the burden to show that a warrantless search falls under one of the permissible exceptions. If no exception is found, the evidence seized as a result of the search should be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree. A search is not unreasonable when it is based on probable cause.
....
Probable cause for a warrantless search exists where the facts and circumstances within the arresting officer's knowledge and of which he had reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been or is being committed. A collection of actions which, individually, are subject to innocent explanation may be sufficient to create reasonable suspicion under the totality of the circumstances....
As the supreme court has explained:
Probable cause is not what some officer thought; it is not some conduct that was simply unusual, not some conduct which simply roused the suspicion that illegal activity could be afoot when there was at the same time just as likely a possibility that nothing at all illegal was transpiring. Rather, it must be information reasonably leading an officer to believe that then and there contraband or evidence material to a criminal investigation would be found.

May v. State , 222 So.3d 1074, 1078-81 (¶¶ 7, 18-19) (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

¶ 18. Although Nowell raises no dispute on appeal regarding the legality of the traffic stop itself, we note that "[t]he action of an officer stopping a vehicle is reasonable when there is 'probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred.' " Walker v. State , 962 So.2d 39, 42 (¶ 6) (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (quoting Whren v. United States , 517 U.S. 806, 810, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996) ). Mississippi caselaw and statutory law establish that probable cause may arise for a traffic stop when an officer reasonably believes that a vehicle's driver and passenger are not wearing properly fastened seatbelts. See Miss. Code Ann. § 63-2-1(1) (Rev. 2013); Austin , 72 So.3d at 568 (¶ 10). In the present case, Officer Gore testified that he initiated the traffic stop because he noticed that neither Stovall nor Nowell was wearing a seatbelt. Based on this testimony, the circuit court found that probable cause existed and that Officer Gore initiated a constitutionally reasonable traffic stop.

¶ 19. During the traffic stop, Officer Gore discovered two pouches, which he subsequently searched and seized. As discussed, Nowell raises no challenge to Officer Gore's search and seizure of the first pouch that fell from Nowell's pant leg during the traffic stop. However, Nowell contends that Officer Gore illegally searched and seized the second pouch found inside the vehicle because the search was not one incident to arrest and because Officer Gore lacked probable cause. After considering the testimony offered by both Officer Gore and Nowell during the first suppression hearing, the circuit court determined that no impermissible search and seizure occurred because the second pouch was in plain view inside the car. Based on the record before us, we cannot say that the circuit court's finding on this issue constituted manifest error or was contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. See Hill , 226 So.3d at 1255-56 (¶ 16).

¶ 20. In addition, although neither party questions on appeal whether Nowell possessed standing to challenge Officer Gore's search and seizure of the second pouch, this Court may address the matter sua sponte. See Chesney v. State , 165 So.3d 498, 508 (¶ 27) (Miss. Ct. App. 2015). "We determine the issue of standing after a two-part inquiry: (1) whether the defendant had a subjective expectation of privacy in the place searched; and (2) whether, from society's perspective, that expectation was reasonable." Id. at (¶ 28) (quoting Bankston v. State , 4 So.3d 377, 380 (¶ 13) (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) ).

¶ 21. Our caselaw holds that Fourth Amendment rights, such as the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, are personal rights that one may not assert vicariously. Walker , 962 So.2d at 42 (¶ 7). "Unless his own rights were violated by a search, a defendant cannot prevent the use of evidence discovered in the search." Powell v. State , 824 So.2d 661, 663 (¶ 10) (Miss. Ct. App. 2002) (citing White v. State , 571 So.2d 956, 958 (Miss. 1990) ). For instance, "[a] passenger who does not own the vehicle cannot complain about the legality of its search." Id. (citation omitted). See also Head v. State , 246 Miss. 203, 207, 136 So.2d 619, 621 (1962) ("Since the defendants were not in possession of the automobile, either in the control or ownership of the car, they have no right to raise the constitutional question of [the] search.").

¶ 22. In the present case, Nowell never asserted a claim of ownership over the vehicle, and he even stated that the day of the arrest was his first time inside the car. Furthermore, according to Nowell, he had only been riding in the car about twenty minutes when Officer Gore initiated the traffic stop. The record here clearly reflects that (1) Nowell was merely a passenger in the car; (2) neither he nor Stovall had a possessory interest in the vehicle; and (3) the car was not Nowell's principal or usual mode of transportation. Cf. Powell , 824 So.2d at 664-65 (¶ 15) (finding the defendant's frequent use of his girlfriend's car granted him a possessory interest in the vehicle and an expectation of privacy from unreasonable searches and seizures). Based on Nowell's own admissions, we find Nowell possessed no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding the vehicle in which he rode. As a result, Nowell lacked standing to challenge the legality of Officer Gore's search of the second pouch or to prevent the use of the methamphetamine discovered in the search. We therefore find no error in the circuit court's denial of Nowell's motion to suppress the methamphetamine.

CONCLUSION

¶ 23. Officer Gore initiated a constitutionally reasonable traffic stop during which he discovered two pouches containing methamphetamine. In determining whether to suppress the evidence related to the search and seizure of the second pouch discovered inside the vehicle, the circuit court neither manifestly erred nor ruled contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence by finding that the pouch was in plain view. Furthermore, because Nowell lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle in which he rode, he possessed no standing to challenge Officer Gore's search and seizure of the second pouch. As a result, we affirm the circuit court's judgment.

¶ 24. AFFIRMED.

LEE, C.J., IRVING AND GRIFFIS, P.JJ., CARLTON, FAIR, WILSON, GREENLEE AND WESTBROOKS, JJ., CONCUR. BARNES, J., CONCURS IN PART AND IN THE RESULT WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION.

      See Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: GREENLEE, J., FOR THE COURT:

license: Public Domain

text:
    Ali M. ALMASRI, Appellant v. Cindy HYDE-SMITH, Commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Agriculture and Commerce and Dr. Ashli Brown, State Chemist, Appellees
    NO. 2017-CA-00163-COA
    Court of Appeals of Mississippi.
    June 12, 2018
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: WILLIAM C. STENNETT, TUPELO
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES: ROBERT W. GRAVES
    BEFORE LEE, C.J., GREENLEE AND TINDELL, JJ.
   GREENLEE, J., FOR THE COURT:

¶ 1. Ali Almasri operates a gas station, Bull Market # 23, where he sells ethanol-blended gasoline and conventional (non-ethanol) gasoline. After a state petroleum inspector performed a routine test on Almasri's ethanol-blended tank, the tank tested positive for water. The inspector then sent samples from the tank to the state chemical laboratory, where further testing and analysis confirmed the ethanol-blended gasoline Almasri was selling contained water, in violation of Mississippi Code Annotated section 75-55-11 (Rev. 2016). Thereafter, the Mississippi Department of Agriculture and Commerce (MDAC) sought a permanent injunction prohibiting Almasri from selling or distributing ethanol-blended gasoline at his station. During an evidentiary hearing, Almasri challenged the State's testing methods, and both he and the State presented expert testimony concerning proof of the water found in the tank. Finding the State's expert to be more credible, the chancellor entered a judgment on November 23, 2016, finding the State used the proper testing method to determine that the ethanol-blended gasoline at Almasri's station contained water. Further, the chancellor issued a permanent injunction prohibiting Almasri from selling or dispensing ethanol-blended gasoline at Bull Market # 23, finding that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage would be inflicted on those who bought or received the product. Fifty-five days after the chancellor entered the judgment, Almasri filed a motion to extend the time in which to file a notice of appeal, which the chancellor granted.

¶ 2. Finding Almasri failed to show excusable neglect as to why he did not timely file a notice of appeal, we dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

BACKGROUND

¶ 3. Ali Almasri operates the Bull Market # 23, a gasoline station in Guntown, Mississippi. The Bull Market station has four nozzles that dispense ethanol-blended gasoline and four that dispense conventional (non-ethanol) gasoline. The station has two underground tanks: one containing ethanol-blended gasoline, and another containing conventional gasoline. One line from the ethanol tank services the four ethanol pumps, and another line from the conventional tank services the four conventional pumps.

¶ 4. On March 7, 2016, Toby Hill, a state petroleum inspector, performed a routine inspection of the ethanol-blended tank at Bull Market # 23. The gasoline in the tank tested positive for water. The inspector then pulled a sample for further testing and analysis, and sent it to the state chemical laboratory at Mississippi State University. Lab tests confirmed that the sample contained water.

¶ 5. On March 9, 2016, Hill issued a stop sale notice and "red tagged" the four ethanol-blended nozzles at Almasri's station by placing plastic restraints on them. However, the plastic restraints were cut off, and customers began obtaining gasoline from the pumps. Following removal of the restraints, the MDAC received approximately five or six complaints from customers who experienced engine stall-outs after purchasing ethanol-blended gasoline from Almasri's station. When Hill confronted one of Almasri's store clerks with the complaints, the clerk said that Almasri told her that "everything was fine" and so the station began selling ethanol-blended gasoline again. On May 30, 2016, Hill issued another stop sale notice and replaced the restraints on the ethanol-blended nozzles.

¶ 6. As a result of Almasri's violation of the stop sale notices, the MDAC commissioner and the state chemist sought an injunction to enjoin Almasri from selling ethanol-blended gasoline. On June 13, 2016, the chancellor issued a temporary restraining order, in which the petroleum inspector was ordered to pull and submit samples from each ethanol-blended pump to the state chemical lab for analysis. The order further prohibited Almasri from selling or giving away any ethanol-blended gasoline, and required that the ethanol-blended pumps remain locked down. On June 28, 2016, the chancellor converted the temporary restraining order into a preliminary injunction.

¶ 7. On July 28, 2016, in anticipation of a hearing on the State's request for a permanent injunction, Hill pulled gasoline samples from each of the four ethanol-blended pumps at Almasri's station and delivered the samples to the state chemical lab for testing. The lab determined that all four samples tested positive for water.

¶ 8. On August 10, 2016, the chancellor heard arguments on the State's request for a permanent injunction. Dr. Darrell Sparks, the director of the petroleum products division of the state chemical lab at Mississippi State University, testified for the State. Dr. Sparks testified that the presence of water can damage an internal combustion engine, and that in order to determine whether a sample of gasoline contains too much water, the state chemical lab uses the "phase separation" standard. Dr. Sparks stated that phase separation is the testing method required by the American Society for Testing Materials ("ASTM") D4814, which Mississippi has adopted as a state regulation. He explained that the phase separation standard does not limit water presence to a particular percentage; rather, it requires that no visual separation of water and gasoline exists to the naked eye. Dr. Sparks further testified that photographs of the four samples pulled from Bull Market on July 28, 2016, revealed visually apparent phase separation, which indicated that the samples tested positive for water.

¶ 9. Dr. Donald Heck, Director of the Iowa Central Fuel Testing Laboratory, testified for Almasri by deposition. Dr. Heck explained that his laboratory uses ASTM methods and conducts several fuel-related activities, including moisture tests of ethanol-blended gasoline. Dr. Heck further testified that Almasri sent him a sample of ethanol-blended gasoline for the purpose of moisture testing. Dr. Heck said he tested the sample using ASTM E203, the volumetric Carl Fisher Moisture Test. Dr. Heck stated that he conducted two rounds of testing. He explained that the first round of tests indicated that Almasri's sample had a .141% moisture content, which is an acceptable amount of moisture for an E10 blend of gasoline. Dr. Heck stated that he conducted a second round of tests after the State expressed a concern that Almasri's sample may consist of gasoline taken from the top of gasoline with phase separation and would therefore not contain the same amount of moisture as the samples sent to the state chemical laboratory. Dr. Heck stated that the second round of tests did not indicate phase separation in the sample. However, Dr. Heck admitted that a moisture content of .141% would equate to a phase separation of roughly 10%, which would be visible to the naked eye. He also admitted that Mississippi follows ASTM D4814, which states that visual inspection is the method required for detecting water in gasoline.

¶ 10. Dr. Sparks testified by deposition in rebuttal for the State. Dr. Sparks stated that Dr. Heck's testing method for moisture content differed from that of phase separation. Dr. Sparks explained that moisture content refers to the amount of water present in a gasoline sample, whereas phase separation occurs when the amount of water in the gasoline phase exceeds the saturation point and the water starts to form its own phase. Dr. Sparks stated that Dr. Heck's method was inconsistent with the method required by Mississippi law. In addition, he said that the sample Almasri submitted to Dr. Heck was adulterated because it was taken from a portion of a larger sample from Almasri's underground tank. Dr. Sparks stated that Dr. Heck's finding of a 10% phase separation would fail by Mississippi standards.

¶ 11. On November 23, 2016, the chancellor entered a judgment finding the State's use of phase separation to be the proper method of testing. The chancellor found that the gasoline samples from Bull Market # 23 contained water, and he issued a permanent injunction prohibiting Almasri from selling ethanol-blended gasoline at his station.

¶ 12. On January 17, 2017, Almasri filed a motion to extend the time in which to file a notice of appeal. His motion stated that he was unable to timely file notice because he could not complete a personal analysis of his business within the thirty-day filing period. Almasri further argued that he acted in good faith and therefore the chancellor should grant his requested extension. On February 2, 2017, the chancellor granted Almasri's request extending his filing deadline until February 6, 2017. Almasri filed his notice of appeal on January 30, 2017. The State argues that Almasri did not demonstrate excusable neglect to receive an extension, his notice was therefore untimely, and this appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

DISCUSSION

¶ 13. Our appellate procedural rules require that a notice of appeal must be filed "within 30 days after the date of entry of the judgment or order appealed from." M.R.A.P. 4(a). Should a party need additional time to file a notice of appeal, the trial court may grant an extension under Rule 4(g), which provides:

The trial court may extend the time for filing a notice of appeal upon motion filed not later than 30 days after the expiration of the time otherwise prescribed by this rule. Any such motion which is filed before expiration of the prescribed time may be granted for good cause and may be ex parte unless the court otherwise requires. Notice of any such motion which is filed after expiration of the prescribed time shall be given to other parties, and the motion shall be granted only upon a showing of excusable neglect .

(Emphasis added).

¶ 14. In the instant case, the chancery court entered the judgment appealed from on November 23, 2016. The thirty-day appeal period therefore ended on December 23, 2016. Almasri filed his motion to file an out-of-time appeal on January 17, 2017, fifty-five days after the judgment was entered. Therefore, in order to receive additional time to file his notice of appeal, Almasri had the burden of showing that his failure to file a timely notice was a result of "excusable neglect." Id. ; Schmitt v. Capers (In re Estate of Ware) , 573 So.2d 773, 775 (Miss. 1990).

¶ 15. We review a trial court's excusable-neglect determination with a bifurcated standard. Nunnery v. Nunnery , 195 So.3d 747, 751 (¶ 12) (Miss. 2016). To the extent that the trial court's excusable-neglect determination involves the determination of legal principles, we will conduct a de novo review. Long v. Mem'l Hosp. at Gulfport , 969 So.2d 35, 38 (¶ 5) (Miss. 2007). "[W]hen ... the trial judge's decision rests upon an examination of facts, we review for abuse of discretion and to ensure the decision is supported by substantial evidence." Nunnery , 195 So.3d at 751 (¶ 12). "Which standard to apply is a decision to be made on an ad hoc basis." Id. (citing Bennett v. McCaffrey , 937 So.2d 11, 14 (¶ 8) (Miss. 2006) ).

¶ 16. "An excusable-neglect determination is at bottom an equitable one, taking account of all relevant circumstances surrounding the party's omission." Id. at 752 (¶ 15) (internal quotation mark omitted). The Mississippi Supreme Court has adopted the following four-part test for excusable-neglect: "(1) the danger of prejudice to the non-movant, (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, (3) the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant, and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Pioneer Inv. Serv. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P'ship , 507 U.S. 380, 397, 113 S.Ct. 1489, 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993) ).

¶ 17. "[E]xcusable neglect is a very strict standard." Webster v. Webster , 834 So.2d 26, 29 (¶ 11) (Miss. 2002) (internal quotation mark omitted). "[S]imple inadvertence or mistake of counsel or ignorance of the rules usually does not" constitute excusable neglect. Stutts v. Miller , 37 So.3d 1, 4 (¶ 9) (Miss. 2010) ; Holmes v. Coast Transit Auth. , 815 So.2d 1183, 1186 (¶ 11) (Miss. 2002). "Filing a notice is a simple act, and a party must do all it could reasonably be expected to do to perfect the appeal in a timely fashion."

Byrd v. Biloxi Reg'l Med. Ctr. , 722 So.2d 166, 169 (¶ 13) (Miss. Ct. App. 1998).

¶ 18. In his motion for an extension of time, Almasri stated that "his decision [to appeal] was based upon his own personal business analysis that was not completed until after the [thirty][-]day [filing] period ... had expired." Further, he argued that "he at all times acted in good faith" and "his considered decision should amount to good cause ... to grant his requested extension." Again, a motion for an extension filed after expiration of the thirty-day filing period requires a showing of excusable neglect, rather than good cause. In re Estate of Ware , 573 So.2d at 775.

¶ 19. From the record, it is unclear whether the chancellor granted Almasri's motion based on good cause or excusable neglect. However, even assuming the chancellor used the correct standard in making his decision, we find that Almasri did not demonstrate excusable neglect. Almasri knew the entry date of the final judgment against him, and there is no assertion that he was unaware of his deadline to file a notice of appeal. Further, Almasri offers no evidence of why he was unable to complete his business analysis within the thirty-day period following final judgment or why such would be excusable neglect. We thus find Almasri's reason for delay was within his reasonable control. And although Almasri may have acted in good faith, "[e]quity aids the vigilant and not those who slumber on their rights." In re Estate of Winding , 783 So.2d 707, 711 (¶ 15) (Miss. 2001).

¶ 20. Under Rule 4(g), the chancellor's discretion to grant Almasri's motion for an extension was limited; he only had authority to grant the motion upon a showing of excusable neglect. Almasri made no such showing to the trial court. Therefore, we hold that the chancellor abused his discretion in granting Almasri's motion to extend the time in which to file a notice of appeal.

¶ 21. This appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

¶ 22. APPEAL DISMISSED.

LEE, C.J., IRVING AND GRIFFIS, P.JJ., BARNES, CARLTON, FAIR, WILSON, WESTBROOKS AND TINDELL, JJ., CONCUR.

      Section 75-55-11 provides that "[n]o person shall sell gasoline which fails to meet the standard" defined by Chapter 55. Under section 75-55-3(3), the Commissioner of Agriculture and Commerce "and the State Chemist shall have joint authority for setting specifications of petroleum products and shall have the authority to establish rules and regulations in connection with enforcement of ... [Chapter 55]." The state regulation regarding water tolerance requires that no phase separation may occur. Miss. Admin. Code § 2-1-4:08

      The MDAC is charged with checking gas stations periodically for signage, pump calibration, ethanol content, and water content. When a petroleum inspector conducts a routine inspection of an ethanol-blended tank for water, he puts a paste on the bottom of a wooden stick and inserts it in the underground tank. If there is one-quarter inch or more of water on the stick, the pump is immediately put under a stop sale notice. This is referred to as a "stick test."

      It was uncontested that the plastic restraints were removed. Almasri asserted that customers cut them off.

      An E10 blend of gasoline contains 90% gasoline and 10% ethanol.


author: SELLERS, Justice.

text:
    NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC. v. Adrienne SCOTT
    1160656
    Supreme Court of Alabama.
    August 11, 2017
    J. Patrick Strubel and Jeremy S. Gaddy of Huie, Fernambucq & Stewart, LLP, Birmingham, for appellant.
    Kenneth J. Mendelsohn of Jemison & Mendelsohn, P.C., Montgomery, for appellee.
   SELLERS, Justice.

Nissan North America, Inc. ("Nissan"), appeals from an order of the Montgomery Circuit Court compelling it to arbitrate certain claims filed against it by Adrienne Scott ("Scott"). We reverse and remand.

Facts and Procedural History

On July 16, 2015, Scott purchased from Jack Ingram Motors, Inc. ("Jack Ingram"), a new 2015 Nissan Juke automobile, which had been manufactured by Nissan. In connection with the sale of the vehicle, Scott signed an arbitration agreement that states, in relevant part:

"Buyer/Lessee acknowledges and agrees that the vehicle Buyer/Lessee is purchasing or leasing from Dealer has traveled in interstate commerce. Buyer/Lessee thus acknowledges that the vehicle and other aspects of the sale, lease or financing transaction are involved in, affect, or have a direct impact upon interstate commerce.
"Buyer/Lessee and Dealer agree that all claims, demands, disputes or controversies of every kind or nature between them arising from, concerning or relating to any of the negotiations involved in the sale, lease or financing of the vehicle, the terms and provisions of the sale, lease, or financing agreements, the arrangements for financing, the purchase of insurance, extended warranties, service contracts or other products purchased as an incident to the sale, lease or financing of the vehicle, the performance or condition of the vehicle, or any other aspect of the vehicle and its sale, lease, or financing shall be settled by binding arbitration by one arbitrator selected by the Dealer with consent of the Buyer/Lessee conducted pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. Section 1 et seq. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, it is the intention of the Buyer/Lessee and the Dealer to resolve by binding arbitration all disputes between them concerning the vehicle, its sale, lease, or financing, and its condition, including disputes concerning the terms and conditions of the sale, lease, or financing, the condition of the vehicle, any damage to the vehicle, the terms and conditions of any of the documents signed or given in connection with the sale, lease or financing, any representations, promises or omissions made in connection with negotiations for the sale, lease, or financing of the vehicle, or any terms, conditions, representations or omissions made in connection with the financing, leasing, credit life insurance, disability insurance, vehicle extended warranty or service contract or other products or services acquired as an incident to the sale, lease or financing of the vehicle.
"Either party may demand arbitration by serving upon the other party a written demand for arbitration along with a statement of the matter in controversy. The Buyer/Lessee and the Dealer agree that the arbitration proceedings to resolve all such disputes shall he conducted in the city where the dealer's facility is located...."

(Emphasis added.)

On November 15, 2015, Scott took the vehicle to Jack Ingram after smelling fuel in the interior of the vehicle. Jack Ingram informed Scott that it did not detect the smell of fuel inside the vehicle, that it had inspected the fuel system of the vehicle, and that it found no leaks in the fuel system. Two days later, while Scott was driving the vehicle, it spontaneously caught fire.

On November 22, 2016, Scott filed a complaint against Jack Ingram and Nissan, alleging that she had suffered physical injuries as well as mental anguish as a result of the fire; that she had incurred medical expenses for her physical injuries; and that her vehicle was a total loss. Count one of the complaint sought damages against Nissan under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine; count two of the complaint sought damages against Nissan for negligence and wantonness; count three of the complaint sought damages against both Nissan and Jack Ingram for breach of warranty; and count four of the complaint sought damages against Jack Ingram for negligence.

On December 27, 2016, Jack Ingram moved to compel arbitration of the claims filed against it based on the arbitration agreement Scott had signed in connection with the sale of the vehicle. Scott filed a response indicating that, although she was willing to arbitrate her breach-of-warranty and negligence claims against Jack Ingram, she objected to litigating part of the case, i.e., her claims against Nissan, because, she said, "to do so would require all of the parties to incur extra expenses and could result in inconsistent judgments." She indicated in her response that she was willing to arbitrate the case or to litigate the case, but she objected to having to do both. On February 22, 2017, the trial court entered an order holding that, "in the interest of judicial economy," the entire matter should be arbitrated. Nissan filed a motion to reconsider, which the trial court denied. Nissan appeals pursuant to Rule 4(d), Ala. R. App. P.

Standard of Review

"This Court's standard of review on an appeal from a trial court's order granting or denying a motion to compel arbitration is well settled. Bowen v. Security Pest Control, Inc., 879 So.2d 1139, 1141 (Ala. 2003). A direct appeal is the proper procedure by which to seek review of such an order, Rule 4(d), Ala. R. App. P., and this Court will review de novo the trial court's grant or denial of a motion to compel arbitration. Bowen, 879 So.2d at 1141. The party seeking to compel arbitration has the initial burden of proving the existence of a contract calling for arbitration and proving that the contract evidences a transaction involving interstate commerce. Polaris Sales, Inc. v. Heritage Imports, Inc., 879 So.2d 1129, 1132 (Ala. 2003). The party seeking to compel arbitration must present some evidence tending to establish its claim. Wolff Motor Co. v. White, 869 So.2d 1129, 1131 (Ala. 2003). Once the moving party meets that initial burden, the party opposing arbitration has the burden of presenting evidence tending to show that the arbitration agreement is invalid or that it does not apply to the dispute in question. Bowen, 879 So.2d at 1141. See also Title Max of Birmingham, Inc. v. Edwards, 973 So.2d 1050, 1052-53 (Ala. 2007)."

Alabama Title Loans, Inc. v. White, 80 So.3d 887, 891-92 (Ala. 2011).

Discussion

Initially, we note that Jack Ingram, the party seeking to compel arbitration, met its initial burden of proving the existence of an arbitration agreement and proving that the agreement evidenced a transaction involving interstate commerce. Accordingly, the burden then shifted to Scott to show that the arbitration agreement was invalid or that it did not apply to the dispute in question. Unique to this case is the fact that Scott does not oppose arbitration of her claims against Jack Ingram, the party seeking to compel arbitration. Rather, she "objects" to having to separately litigate her claims against Nissan because, she says, litigating those claims would "require all of the parties to incur extra expenses and could result in inconsistent judgments." The trial court agreed with Scott and compelled Nissan, a nonsignatory to the arbitration agreement, to arbitrate the claims asserted against it, citing "judicial economy" as the reason for its holding. Judicial economy, however, is not a proper basis for compelling arbitration against a nonsignatory. See, e.g., Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213, 217, 105 S.Ct. 1238, 84 L.Ed.2d 158 (1985) ("[T]he [Federal] Arbitration Act requires district courts to compel arbitration of pendent arbitrable claims when one of the parties files a motion to compel, even where the result would be the possibly inefficient maintenance of separate proceedings in different forums."). It is well established that " ' " '[a]rbitration is a matter of contract, and a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed so to submit.' " ' " Custom Performance, Inc. v. Dawson, 57 So.3d 90, 97 (Ala. 2010) (quoting Central Reserve Life Ins. Co. v. Fox, 869 So.2d 1124, 1127 (Ala. 2003), quoting in turn AT & T Techs., Inc. v. Communications Workers of America, 475 U.S. 643, 648, 106 S.Ct. 1415, 89 L.Ed.2d 648 (1986), quoting in turn United Steelworkers of America v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574, 582, 80 S.Ct. 1347, 4 L.Ed.2d 1409 (1960) ). "A party typically manifests its assent to arbitrate a dispute by signing the contract containing the arbitration provision." Smith v. Mark Dodge, Inc., 934 So.2d 375, 380 (Ala. 2006). The general rule that nonsignatories to an arbitration agreement cannot be compelled to arbitrate their claims is subject to certain exceptions not applicable here.

It is undisputed that Nissan was not a party to the arbitration agreement Scott signed in conjunction with the sale of the vehicle, and, unlike Jack Ingram, Nissan did not seek to compel arbitration of the claims asserted against it. In Jack Ingram Motors, Inc. v. Ward, 768 So.2d 362 (Ala. 1999), this Court discussed an arbitration agreement nearly identical to the arbitration agreement in this case and specifically addressed the issue whether a lessee's claims against the financial-services provider, a nonsignatory to the agreement, were subject to arbitration. In Ward, the lessee agreed to lease a vehicle from Jack Ingram, and, in conjunction with the lease, the lessee and Jack Ingram executed an arbitration agreement. The lessee thereafter sued Jack Ingram and the financial-services provider, alleging fraud, suppression, and wantonness in relation to an undisclosed acquisition fee included in his monthly lease payments; the lessee was not provided with any paperwork that would have placed him on notice that the acquisition fee would be included in his monthly payments. This Court affirmed the trial court's denial of the lessee's motion to compel arbitration against the financial-services provider, concluding that "[t]he arbitration provision is limited by its terms to disputes arising between the 'buyer/lessor' (Ward) and the 'dealer' (Jack Ingram Motors). It is not broad enough to include [the financial-services provider]." 768 So.2d at 364.

Likewise, in the present case, the scope of the arbitration agreement is limited by its terms to disputes between the "Buyer/Lessee" (Scott) and the "Dealer" (Jack Ingram). Accordingly, the arbitration agreement precludes this Court from requiring Nissan to arbitrate the claims asserted against it. See also Parkway Dodge, Inc. v. Yarbrough, 779 So.2d 1205, 1210 (Ala. 2000) ("[T]he arbitration agreement in this case is specifically limited to the signing parties, namely, Yarbrough, as the purchaser, and Parkway, as the dealer. The language of the arbitration agreement is not broad enough to reach the manufacturer; therefore, DaimlerChrysler is not entitled to compel arbitration ....").

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court exceeded its discretion by compelling Nissan to arbitrate the claims asserted against it by Scott. The trial court's order is reversed, and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Stuart, C.J., and Parker, Shaw, and Wise, JJ., concur.

      We note that Scott, in her appellee's brief, no longer opposes arbitrating her claims against Jack Ingram and litigating her claims against Nissan, stating that "if Nissan wants to give Scott '2 bites at the apple,' she will take it." Thus, Scott takes no further position on the issue.


text:
    Ronnie HOPSON v. LILLY, LLC, and Chae H. Bucz
    2150836
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 30, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    NEWPORT TELEVISION, LLC v. Cyndi BOOTH
    2150770
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 19, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Cross-Appeal - Affirmed.


text:
    2NDS IN BUILDING CO. v. Kenneth PETERS
    2150608
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 12, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Nathaniel J. BRANTLEY v. HSBC BANK, USA
    2150630
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 3, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    George Nelson JOHNSTON v. Michelle Ladnier JOHNSTON
    2150872
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 30, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    B.M. v. Q.H. and C.H.
    2150896
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 9, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Reuben I. PIERCE, Jr. v. Antoinette W. PIERCE
    2150870
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 5, 2017 Reh. denied June 23, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    L.C.H. v. SHELBY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2150885
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    April 14, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Chey Lindsey GARRIGAN v. Jacob Lynn SIMPKINS
    2150908
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    April 28, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Reh. denied.


text:
    Jonathon Ashley WILLINGHAM v. Kristen Robbins WILLINGHAM
    2150927
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    April 28, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    B.G. v. H.W.
    2150912
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    April 21, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    B.G. and D.P. v. H.W.
    2150913
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    April 21, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Norman Duggan HOLMAN, Sr. v. Sara Walden HOLMAN
    2150987
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 19, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Reh. denied.


text:
    David G. RAWLINGS v. Lisa S. RAWLINGS
    2150941
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 5, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    C.M. v. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2150984
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    April 4, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    C.M. v. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2150985
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    April 4, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    T.M.H. v. H.B. and J.B.
    2151013
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    April 21, 2017 Reh. denied May 26, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Maheishewa WILLIAMS v. MERCEDES BENZ OF HUNTSVILLE, Knox Williams, Rob Callis, and Noland M. Ryan
    2150995
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    April 14, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Marsha WOMACK v. Jason PENN
    2151001
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    April 7, 2017 Reh. denied May 19, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Milton BARNETT v. Bertha GIBBS
    2151015
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    April 4, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Reh. denied.


text:
    A.M. v. V.G. and M.G.
    2160001
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 26, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Denise Sheba JUST v. John Alexander JUST
    2160013
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 26, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    D.J.P. v. C.B.P. and T.G.P.
    2160004
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    April 28, 2017 Reh. denied May 26, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Kaswana KELLY v. Kathleen ABRAMS et al.
    2160018
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    April 7, 2017 Reh. denied May 19, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    WILSON TRUCKING CORP. v. Fredrick A. FATHEREE
    2160021
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 19, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Tonya Doggett THARP v. Jason Calvin DEASE
    2160026
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 5, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Connie Francis LITTLEPAGE III v. Virginia O. LITTLEPAGE
    2160023
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    April 21, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Morgan KELLEY v. Travis KELLEY
    2160027
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    April 14, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Cecelia N. KING v. Anna Belle L. NEWMAN
    2160042
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 23, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Joseph E. WOODS v. Rita H. WOODS
    2160034
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    April 14, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Valene Jaqualin WELLS v. Jeremy Phillip WHEELER
    2160050
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    April 14, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Veronika Santha LUSTER v. Bobby Joseph LUSTER
    2160049
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    April 7, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    S.R. v. SHELBY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2160052
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 30, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Christine MCGALLAGHER v. Hudson L. MCGALLAGHER
    2160062
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 26, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    D.O.W. v. O.N.W.
    2160064
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 5, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    A.B.P. v. JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2160055
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    April 7, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    A.T.W. v. DALLAS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2160075
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 12, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    A.T. IV v. DALLAS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2160074
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 12, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Sarah E. JUNGWIRTH v. Wen-Hsien H. LEE
    2160073
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 5, 2017 Reh. denied June 9, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    D.O.W. v. O.N.W.
    2160065
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 5, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Craig Anthony TAGUDAR and Brittany Nicole Tagudar v. Melinda Denise HADLEY
    2160091
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 9, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Donita L. SMITH v. Robert T. SMITH
    2160089
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 26, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    T.M.C. v. MOBILE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2160100
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 12, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Andrew J. EDSTROM v. Heather EDSTROM
    2160077
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    April 21, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Donald P. BALDAUF v. Julia Helen BALDAUF
    2160113
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 9, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Tony SMITH v. Kandie Mechelle SMITH
    2160104
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 26, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    E.S. v. ESCAMBIA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2160101
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 26, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    J.O.L. v. MADISON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2160112
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 5, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    T. Richard TIPPY, Ekaterina Tippy, and Tippy Contracting, LLC v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.
    2160118
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 14, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    William Brian JAMES v. Jennifer Leona JAMES
    2160119
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 22, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Cynthia L. WOODS and Elijah Parks v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Bank of America, and Specialized Loan Servicing
    2160114
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 8, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    R.G.L. v. MADISON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2160121
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 5, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    A.R.B. v. TALLADEGA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2160134
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 7, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    A.R.B. v. TALLADEGA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2160135
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 7, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    J.J.C. v. J.B.D.
    2160129
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 1, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Transferred to Jefferson Cir. Ct. for trial de de novo pursuant to Rule 28(D), Ala.R.Juv.P.


text:
    Lina L. KELSO v. Michael D. KELSO
    2160137
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    April 25, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    A.W. v. ST. CLAIR COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2160140
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 16, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    A.W. v. ST. CLAIR COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2160141
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 16, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    A.W. v. ST. CLAIR COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2160142
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 16, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Shun L. SHORTRIDGE v. Latricia A. SHORTRIDGE
    2160143
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 13, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Carmen P. DAVIS v. Tony BARNES
    2160148
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 19, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    D.R.W. v. T.L.L.
    2160166
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 12, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Lucasta MANNING v. J.P. DIXON et al.
    2160151
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 3, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    IT ALL, INC., It All Leasing, L.L.C., Roller Knights, L.L.C., and Jim Wilhelm v. Austin HINDS, Randall Ferguson, Jacqueline Hinds, and Ferguson Properties, LLC
    2160154
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    April 28, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    A.L. v. D.L. and T.L.
    2160167
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 22, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    A.L. v. D.L. and T.L.
    2160168
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 22, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    A.L. v. D.L. and T.L.
    2160169
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 22, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Katherine B. LONG v. Louis B. LONG
    2160172
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 12, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Joesph Elmer FREEMAN v. Kristen Michelle FREEMAN
    2160179
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 9, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Rita Marie EDWARDS v. Michael Val EDWARDS
    2160174
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 5, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    L.R.M. v. ETOWAH COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2160176
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 5, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    M.M. v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2160173
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    April 13, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Theophile SABERRE, Dawn Saberre, and John Saberre v. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION and CitiMortgage, Inc.
    2160186
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 28, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Lee Ann JACKSON, executrix of the estate of Wayne Allen Russell, Jr., deceased v. FIRST UNITED SECURITY BANK
    2160183
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 16, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Cross-Appeal - Affirmed.


text:
    Marvin L. PATTON and Lateefah Muhammad v. TUSKEGEE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
    2160184
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 2, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Ira COLVIN v. Terry DUNCAN
    2160182
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 9, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    MARTIN, AYCOCK & MCCOY PROPERTIES, LLC v. Mark JEWELL
    2160190
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 16, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    B.M. v. S.P.
    2160193
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 2, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Brandon FRAZIER v. Maranda C. FRAZIER
    2160195
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 2, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    J.C.T. v. COFFEE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2160202
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    April 21, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    M.G. v. CALHOUN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2160213
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 9, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    A.H. v. SHELBY COUNTY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2160206
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 18, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Steven Clay OSBORNE v. Kim Wright OSBORNE
    2160216
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    April 28, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Michael T. SHUTTLESWORTH v. BBVA COMPASS a/k/a Compass Bank
    2160217
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    April 25, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    B.M.P. v. MOBILE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2160231
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 16, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    B.M.P. v. MOBILE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2160232
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 16, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Thomas BAILEY v. Brittany TAYLOR
    2160233
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 16, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Jerry Wayne FRY v. Janice Dale Gaskins FRY
    2160255
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 16, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    T.M. v. M.J.P.
    2160271
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 16, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    A.A.L. v. T.L.
    2160256
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 6, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Eleanor PRICE v. U-HAUL CO. OF ALABAMA, INC.
    2160265
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 2, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Jeffery NIX v. Christie NIX
    2160260
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 5, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    T.M. v. M.J.P.
    2160272
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 16, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Ralph BRADFORD, Sr., and Benjamin Little v. Vaughn STEWART, Jay Jenkins, Millie Harris, David Reddick, and Seyram Selase
    2160277
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 16, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Robert Daniel WALTERS v. Michelle Deakle WALTERS
    2160278
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 16, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Robert Daniel WALTERS v. Michelle Deakle WALTERS
    2160279
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 16, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Jimmie C. CAMPBELL v. Joseph R. CAMPBELL and Marilyn Campbell
    2160285
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 26, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    E.C. v. In the matter of M.B.E.H., a minor child
    2160303
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 25, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Patricia MOON v. Steve DRAKEFORD
    2160286
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 19, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Richard Tremayne VAUGHN v. INDEPENDENT BANK
    2160289
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 11, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH v. A.G.
    2160307
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 30, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Brandi Michelle WATSON v. Justin Lee WATSON
    2160314
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 23, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    J.L.F. v. MADISON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2160317
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 13, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Transferred to Madison Cir. Ct. for trial de novo pursuant to Rule 28(D), Ala. R.Juv.P.


text:
    Astrid SHIKE v. John KAISER, Judith Kaiser, and Amanda Kaiser
    2160305
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 9, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    J.L.F. v. MADISON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2160318
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 13, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Transferred to Madison Cir. Ct. for trial de novo pursuant to Rule 28(D), Ala. R.Juv.P.


text:
    A.I. v. MADISON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2160319
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 13, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Transferred to Madison Cir. Ct. for trial de novo pursuant to Rule 28(D), Ala. R.Juv.P.


text:
    A.I. v. MADISON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2160320
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 13, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Transferred to Madison Cir. Ct. for trial de novo pursuant to Rule 28(D), Ala. R.Juv.P.


text:
    ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR v. John BOWMAN
    2160329
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 23, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Lee EAKINS v. Mark WILSON, Carolyn Dobbs, Karen Sullivan, David Maxey, and Jennifer Dollar
    2160330
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 30, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Vance Gordan GEIST v. Timothy PENN and Anita Penn
    2160341
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 16, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Randall OTEY v. Daniel LEWIS
    2160331
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    April 19, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    METRO TREATMENT OF ALABAMA, LP, d/b/a Sumter County Treatment Center v. STATE HEALTH PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (SHPDA)
    2160342
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    April 13, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    J.S. v. BALDWIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2160345
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 23, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    J.S. v. BALDWIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2160346
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 23, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    ALFA MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. v. Keith STEWART, personal representative of the Estate of Danny Vaughn Stewart, deceased
    2160351
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    April 28, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Gina HILL
    (In re: Gina Hill v. Joseph Lee Thomas)
    2160353
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    April 11, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    M.B. v. In the matter of J.E.F., a minor child
    2160358
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 12, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    M.B. v. In the matter of A.C.F.F., a minor child
    2160357
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 12, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Melissa A. BAYLESS and David Riddle v. ALABAMA HOUSING FINANCE AUTHORITY
    2160385
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 9, 2017 Dismissed as to appellant David Riddle. May 12, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed as to appellant David Riddle.


text:
    Robrielle Kory CHAPMAN v. Quintress Renee CHAPMAN
    2160356
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 3, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    John W. COST v. Mahlon FELKINS, Brenda Leigh Felkins, and Alabama Power Co.
    2160394
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 12, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    ESTATE OF Brad SAINT, BY AND THROUGH executrix Susan VEASEY v. Angela SAINT
    2160392
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 8, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Faith A. TAYLOR v. Jeremy D. BOHANON
    2160393
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 6, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    EAST ALABAMA MEDICAL CENTER v. STATE HEALTH PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (SHPDA) and Metro Treatment of Alabama, LP, d/b/a Sumter County Treatment Center
    2160396
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    April 13, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Lee EAKINS v. Mark WILSON, Dolores Johnson, and Jefferson County Department of Public Health
    2160398
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 30, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    John C. ALLEN v. Patsy ALLEN, Dr. Jacob B. Webster, M.D., William Brantley, Carolyn M. Dohn, and Samuel N. Crosby
    2160413
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 12, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Transferred to Sup. Ct. for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction


text:
    EX PARTE T.T.T.
    (In re: K.M.G. v. T.T.T.)
    2160397
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    April 28, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Claude Derrick B. CAMPBELL, Sr. v. Lasuan Dinkins CAMPBELL
    2160399
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    April 26, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    D.E. v. RUSSELL COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2160445
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 31, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    D.E. v. RUSSELL COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2160446
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 31, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Angela JULIAN v. SONIC AUTOMOTIVE, INC., d/b/a Tom Williams, BMW
    2160440
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 12, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Raytoria MCBRYDE v. VALERIO AUTO SALES
    2160442
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    April 27, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    D.E. v. RUSSELL COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2160448
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 31, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    D.E. v. RUSSELL COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2160449
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 31, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    D.E. v. RUSSELL COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2160447
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 31, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    D.E. v. RUSSELL COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2160450
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 31, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    D.E. v. RUSSELL COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2160451
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 31, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    T.G. v. RUSSELL COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2160454
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 31, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    T.G. v. RUSSELL COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2160452
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 31, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    T.G. v. RUSSELL COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2160453
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 31, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    T.G. v. RUSSELL COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2160455
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 31, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    T.G. v. RUSSELL COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2160456
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 31, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    T.G. v. RUSSELL COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2160457
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 31, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    T.G. v. RUSSELL COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2160458
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 31, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    M.E.D. v. C.J.C.
    2160464
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 30, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Adam LASH
    (In re: Adam Lash v. Jennifer Lash)
    2160479
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    April 12, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Lynn BUFFALOW and Linda Benefield, personal representative of the Estate of Gregory Buffalow v. GUARDIAN PEST SERVICES, INC., John A. Knox, and Carey J. Bloodworth
    2160472
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    April 4, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Eugene KEELER
    (In re: Eugene Keeler v. Anderson Automotive, LLC)
    2160459
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    April 3, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. dismissed.


text:
    R.A. and D.A. v. A.B.
    2160491
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 16, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    R.A. and D.A. v. A.B.
    2160492
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 16, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Temeka MCGHEE v. MONTGOMERY HOUSING AUTHORITY
    2160486
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 1, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Randall OTEY
    (In re: Randall Otey v. Judge James P. Smith)
    2160484
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    April 3, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    Kevin MOORE v. Aisha J. GRIFFIN
    2160498
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 12, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Sammie SMITH v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
    2160495
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 8, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    D.B.K. v. J.W.B.
    2160501
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 22, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    A.W. v. MADISON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2160494
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 4, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    D.B.K. v. J.W.B.
    2160502
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 22, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE SATELLITES UNLIMITED, INC.
    (In re: Donald Thomas v. Satellites Unlimited, Inc.)
    2160504
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    April 11, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Tina WYNN
    (In re: Tina Wynn v. Deshante Steger)
    2160511
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    April 6, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    James Michael GAY and Larry Gene Gay v. Robert Howard GAY and Howard Wayne Gay
    2160514
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    April 5, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Transferred to Sup. Ct. for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.


text:
    S.L. v. SHELBY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2160540
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 23, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Harold HOLT v. LIMESTONE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2160548
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 21, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Danny POWELL v. Kenya MADISON
    2160533
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 8, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    D.R. and D.R. v. CLEBURNE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2160549
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 23, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    D.R. and D.R. v. CLEBURNE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2160550
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 23, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    D.R. and D.R. v. CLEBURNE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2160551
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 23, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Deanna Perryman SCHOFIELD
    (In re: Deanna Perryman Schofield v. Jonathan Shawn Schofield)
    2160553
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 17, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Deanna Perryman SCHOFIELD
    (In re: Deanna Perryman Schofield v. Jonathan Shawn Schofield)
    2160552
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 17, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. dismissed.


text:
    Linda JACKSON v. BIRMINGHAM AIRPORT AUTHORITY
    2160568
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 15, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Linda JACKSON v. BIRMINGHAM AIRPORT AUTHORITY
    2160569
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 15, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Joe WILLIAMS III, Intervenor v. Steven TATE and Tracy Tate
    2160554
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 9, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Brandon JOHNSON
    (In re: Brandon Johnson v. Victor Revill, Shaun Styers, and Leroy Maxwell, Jr.)
    2160557
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    April 19, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Transferred to Sup. Ct. for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.


text:
    Raymond Donovan WILLIAMS v. STATE
    2160577
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 19, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Raymond Donovan WILLIAMS v. STATE
    2160578
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 19, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Estervenico MITCHELL
    (In re: Estervenico Mitchell v. Dr. Darryl Hamilton, M.D.)
    2160579
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    April 26, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Transferred to Sup. Ct. for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.


text:
    The RIMPSEY AGENCY, INC. v. W.F. JOHNSTON IV and William M. Lawrence
    2160575
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    April 26, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Transferred to Sup. Ct. for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.


text:
    Willie Terrell JACKSON v. Aimee Cobb SMITH
    2160580
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 30, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    A.T.E. v. R.N. and K.N.
    2160602
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 19, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Gregory Lynn OGLES v. Angela MCCLINTOCK, Cheraton Huff, Iris Johnson, Tracy Eubanks, Tina Dollar, Pam Granger, and Tamika Johnson
    2160591
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 22, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Transferred to Sup. Ct. for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.


text:
    DIAMANTE ENTERPRISES, LLC v. Paul BRACKNELL and Connie Bracknell
    2160592
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 17, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Transferred to Sup. Ct. for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.


text:
    EX PARTE T.C.
    (In re: M.R.H., a minor child)
    2160588
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 17, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. dismissed.


text:
    Ruben MALONE, Jr. v. BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, AND FIREARMS, Larry Amerson, Jeremy Penny, and Randy Cobb
    2160626
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 15, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Margaret J. FINUCAN v. Dr. Terry TREADWELL
    2160628
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 13, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE R.B. and M.B.
    (In re: The matter of M.M., a minor child)
    2160640
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 24, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Kevin LANGLEY
    (In re: Fawn Langley v. Kevin Langley )
    2160616
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 15, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    Dawn Kelly STRONG v. Clay SLATE, Jr.
    2160649
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 28, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Transferred to Sup. Ct. for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.


text:
    EX PARTE D.L.G.
    (In re: The matter of D.S., a minor child)
    2160653
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 24, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE D.L.G.
    (In re: The matter of J.D., a minor child)
    2160652
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 24, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Ronald D. VETETO
    (In re: Ronald D. Veteto v. Jeff Dunn et al.)
    2160651
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 24, 2017 Reh. denied June 27, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE D.L.G.
    (In re: The matter of J.D., a minor child)
    2160669
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 1, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. dismissed.


text:
    R.D. v. MADISON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2160658
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 30, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Carrie Suzanne BRAGG
    (In re: Carrie Suzanne Bragg v. Walter Alexander Roche, Jr.)
    2160656
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 25, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    EX PARTE D.L.G.
    (In re: the Matter of P.D., a minor child)
    2160654
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 24, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. dismissed.


text:
    J.D.A. v. The matter of A.C., a minor child
    2160672
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 15, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE TTR CONSTRUCTION, LLC, et al.
    (In re: Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. v. TTR Construction, LLC, and Carolyn Robinson)
    2160678
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 9, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE J.B., T.J., and H.B.
    (In re: The matter of T.J.)
    2160676
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 6, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE D.L.G.
    (In re: The matter of D.S., a minor child)
    2160670
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 1, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE D.L.G.
    (In re: The matter of P.D., a minor child)
    2160671
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 1, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. dismissed:


text:
    EX PARTE A.L.M.
    (In re: H.R.G. v. A.L.M.)
    2160704
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 20, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    Mark JUSTICE v. Sherri JUSTICE
    2160695
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 16, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Charles Darby KILPATRICK
    (In re: Marti Buckley Kilpatrick v. Charles Darby Kilpatrick)
    2160692
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 13, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Anthony MORRIS
    (In re: Anthony Morris v. Escambia County Board of Education and John Knott, in his capacity as Superintendent of Education for the Escambia County Board of Education)
    2160683
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 8, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    EX PARTE M.A.M.J.
    (In re: M.A.M.J. v. M.P.W.)
    2160726
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 23, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    EX PARTE A.C.T.
    (In re: J.L.O. v. A.C.T.)
    2160731
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 23, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    C.D.N. v. D.S.
    2160705
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 20, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Natasha O'BRIEN
    (In re: George Anthony Penny v. Natasha D. O'Brien)
    2160707
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 16, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE A.C.T.
    (In re: J.L.O. v. A.C.T.)
    2160732
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 23, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    EX PARTE A.C.T.
    (In re: J.L.O. v. A.C.T.)
    2160733
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 23, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. denied.