State v. Redtop Market, Inc.

Although I agree with the majority that, based on Rule 59.1, Ala. R. Civ. P., and relevant caselaw for the past 27 years, the State's appeal was untimely and should be dismissed, I write specially concerning two troubling aspects of this case.

The first aspect has to do with our strict interpretation of Rule 59.1, Ala. R. Civ. P. In a dissent in Harrison v.Alabama Power Co., 371 So.2d 19 (Ala. 1979), a case holding that a consent to a continuance of a hearing does not satisfy the requirement that the record show the parties' express consent to the extension of the 90-day period during which a…