holding that a trial court's orders that "purported to adjudicate all issues in [the] matters to final determination" were "final judgments subject to appeal, not interlocutory orders subject to review by a petition for a writ of mandamus"
How later courts described this case
- holding that a trial court's orders that "purported to adjudicate all issues in [the] matters to final determination" were "final judgments subject to appeal, not interlocutory orders subject to review by a petition for a writ of mandamus"
- explaining that a statutory allowance for "an 'electronic marking machine' [does not] obviate[ ] all the other criteria" of the game commonly and traditionally known as bingo
- holding that the orders at issue ’’amount[ed] to final judgments subject to appeal, not interlocutory orders subject to review by a petition for a writ of mandamus”
- ‘[T]he game of “bingo” as that term is used in local constitutional amendments throughout the State is that game “commonly or traditionally known as bingo,” 42 So.3d at 86, and ... this game is characterized by at least the six elements we identified in Cornerstone.’
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BRYAN, Justice
(concurring in case no. 1101313, case no. 1110158, and case no. 1130598 and concurring in the rationale in part and concurring in the result in case no. 1101384 and case no. 1110310).
I concur in all aspects of the main opinion, except the discussion of this Court’s appellate jurisdiction over cases arising under Rule 3.13, Ala. R.Crim. P. As to that discussion, I agree with the ultimate holding — that this Court has appellate jurisdiction.