# Hall ex rel. Hall v. Jones

> Supreme Court of Alabama · December 20, 2013 · 147 So. 3d 415

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4814162

## Case

- **Full name:** Ex parte Chad JONES. (In re Demetrius Hall, a minor, suing by and through his mother and next friend, Latonya Hall Latonya Hall, individually and Maurice Caffie, individually v. Chad Jones)
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Alabama
- **Decided:** December 20, 2013
- **Citations:** 147 So. 3d 415; 2013 Ala. LEXIS 190; 2013 WL 6703448
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Shaw
- **Judges:** Bolin, Bryan, Main, Moore, Murdock, Parker, Shaw, Stuart, Wise
- **Cited by:** 5 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4814162

## Opinion text

SHAW, Justice
(concurring in the result).
I agree that the petition for the writ of mandamus should be denied. I write to note the following.
*421 The issue whether State-agent immunity applies may at times rely heavily on the facts of the case. Thus, the course of discovery may reveal new evidence or factors that show that a previously denied motion for a summary judgment was premature. A second or renewed motion for a summary judgment may be necessary to present that evidence or those factors to the trial court; the trial court, as noted in the main opinion, is free to consider such a motion. In that scenario, I see no barrier to this Court’s reviewing a second petition for writ of mandamus challenging the denial of such second or renewed motion, and I see nothing in the main opinion contrary to that notion.
In the instant matter, the second or renewed motion for a summary judgment raised no new significant factual or legal arguments differing from the first motion: it was, for all intents and purposes, the same motion. The trial court’s denial was the same denial challenged in the previous untimely petition for a writ of mandamus. I do not believe that the petitioner has demonstrated that the trial court in this case had the “imperative duty” to grant a summary-judgment motion that, in essence, it had already considered and rejected. I thus agree that this Court is not required to address the underlying merits of the instant petition.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4814162. Public record. Not legal advice.