Alabama Supreme Court Alert - May 9, 2025

PDF

The Alabama Supreme Court issued its weekly release list on Friday, May 9. The opinions of interest to the Alabama business community include the following: 

Flickinger v. King: This appeal arises from the fallout over an attorney’s controversial social media post concerning the death of George Floyd. Flickinger, an attorney, posted a controversial opinion on his personal social media account. King, an attorney at another law firm, created a “counterfeit” social media profile that incorporated Flickinger’s posts and identified Flickinger’s law firm. King then sent the “counterfeit” profile to a partner at Flickinger’s law firm. Flickinger resigned under pressure from his law firm and sued King and King’s law firm for tortious interference. The trial court concluded that Flickinger could not prove that either defendant caused Flickinger’s law firm to request his resignation, and it entered summary judgment for both. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for the law firm, but reversed and remanded the judgment as to King. The Court held that, regardless of whether Flickinger could prove causation, King’s law firm could not be liable for King’s messages, which were sent after business hours and stemmed from wholly personal motives. But the Court also held that Flickinger had provided enough evidence to maintain his claim against King. The Court emphasized that more lenient “causation” standards apply in intentional-tort cases. Even though King had not expressly advocated for Flickinger’s termination, his messages to the partner put the wheels of Flickinger’s termination in motion. A jury could conclude that King’s messages were a “substantial factor” in causing Flickinger’s harm.

Williams v. Dodd.: In an opinion addressing its jurisdictional limits, the Supreme Court dismissed this appeal as untimely even though both parties agreed on the record to extend the time that the case could remain pending in the trial court. After the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint, the plaintiffs filed a postjudgment motion, and the parties consented on the record to an extension of the trial court’s 90-day limit for ruling on the motion. That consent, however, did not appear on the record until after the 90-day period had already expired. Although the trial court purported to enter an order denying plaintiff’s postjudgment motion, the motion had already been denied by operation of law and the time for filing a notice of appeal had already begun to run. By the time the plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal, it was too late.

Lewis v. Ojano-Bracco: In an appeal arising from a default judgment, the Court discussed the requirements for service of process on an individual defendant, including what constitutes an individual’s “usual place of abode” and who may accept service there. After the suit was filed in 2017, the summons and complaint were served at an address that was, at the time, the defendant’s marital home, and were accepted by the defendant’s stepson, an adult child who resided there.  The defendant failed to respond to the complaint for several years, and a default judgment was entered against him by the Jefferson County Circuit Court.  On appeal, the defendant argued that the default judgment was void because he was never personally served. The Court held for the first time that a “married man’s marital home, for purposes of service of process, is presumed to be his usual place of abode” even if he is “renting a separate apartment.” The Court held that the defendant was properly served because service of process was delivered to his usual place of abode and was accepted by an adult child who represented on official documents that he lived there.  

If you have questions about these decisions or want to discuss any other matters relating to Alabama appellate law, please do not hesitate to reach out to us, or to any other member of Maynard’s appellate group.