Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Allen v. U.S. Steel Mining Co.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

Decided August 22, 2014No. 2130820Published

1ConcurrenceDonaldson, Judge

I agree that the current interpretation of the phrase “inconsistent with due process” in our caselaw involving the propriety of granting relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4), Ala. R. Civ. P., required the trial court in this case to set aside the judgment of dismissal, pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4). See Ex parte Third Generation, Inc., 855 So.2d 489, 492 (Ala.2003) (noting that the phrase refers to deprivations of procedural due process). I write specially to express my view that Rule 60(b)(4) should apply only to judgments the trial court could not have made, rather than to judgments it should not…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Ex Parte Full Circle Distribution, L.L.C.Supreme Court of Alabama · 2003
  2. Satterfield v. Winston Industries, Inc.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1989
  3. Ex Parte Third Generation, Inc.Supreme Court of Alabama · 2003
  4. Cornelius v. BrowningSupreme Court of Alabama · 2011

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API