Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Henri-Duval Winery, LLC v. Alabama Alcoholic Beverage Control Board

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided May 1, 2009No. 1070257Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMurdock, Justice

I concur in the affirmance of the trial court’s judgment on remand in this case, see Alabama Alcoholic Beverage Control Board v. Henri-Duval Winery, L.L.C., 890 So.2d 70 (Ala.2004), except to the extent that the trial court determined that Henri-Duval Winery, L.L.C., has not been a “prevailing party” for purposes of recovering *1150an attorney fee pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. See, e.g., Grier v. Goetz, 421 F.Supp.2d 1061, 1068-69 (M.D.Tenn.2006) (discussing relevant United States Supreme Court precedents); James v. Alabama Coal, for Equity, Inc., 713 So.2d 937, 947 (Ala.1997) (quoting Texas State…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Texas State Teachers Ass'n v. Garland Independent School DistrictSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  2. Alabama Alcohol. Bev. Bd. v. Henri-Duval WinerySupreme Court of Alabama · 2004
  3. James v. Alabama Coalition for Equity, Inc.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1997
  4. Grier v. GoetzDistrict Court, M.D. Tennessee · 2006

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

Powered by the Exa API