# Sanchez v. McKinney

> Supreme Court of Alabama · May 27, 2011 · 87 So. 3d 502

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4873039

## Case

- **Full name:** Ex parte Donna McKINNEY and Marlin McKinney. (In re Gilberto Sanchez v. Donna McKinney and Marlin McKinney)
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Alabama
- **Decided:** May 27, 2011
- **Citations:** 87 So. 3d 502; 2011 WL 2094667
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Cobb
- **Judges:** Bolin, Cobb, Main, Murdock, Parker, Shaw, Stuart, Wise, Woodall
- **Cited by:** 26 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/4873039

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that "this Court has long recognized a disinclination to overrule existing caselaw in the absence of either a specific request to do so or an adequate argument asking that we do so"
- recognizing that " '[s]tanding is " ' "[t]he requisite personal interest that must exist at the commencement of the litigation" ' " ' "(citations omitted)
- noting this Court's "disinclination to overrule existing caselaw in the absence of either a specific request to do so or an adequate argument asking that we do"

## Opinion text

COBB, Chief Justice
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
When this Court decided Cadle Co. v. Shabani, 4 So.3d 460 (Ala.2008), Justice Murdock wrote a powerful dissent. See Cadle, 4 So.3d at 463 (Murdock, J., dissenting). I concurred in the result in Ca-dle, with the following special writing:
“Under other circumstances, I would find Justice Murdock’s dissent persuasive, particularly with respect to the savings in judicial resources that would be effected if the filing and prosecution of an entirely new legal action could be avoided. However, under the circumstances of this case, it does not appear to me that the jurisdictional impediment first noted in Cadle Co. v. Shabani, 950 So.2d 277 (Ala.2006), was ever removed. Accordingly, I concur in the result.”
4 So.3d at 463 (Cobb, C.J., concurring in the result).
I cannot concur with the Court’s decision to continue to unnecessarily curtail the jurisdiction of the courts of this State by continuing to rely on Cadle, which was wrongly decided, merely because we did not receive an invitation to overrule the case. Why should this Court perpetuate the confusion that it caused? We should remedy the “blurring” noted in note 7 of the main opinion and overrule Cadle ex meru motu.
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from the Court’s holding that Gilberto Sanchez lacks standing to prosecute his claim for ejectment. In all other respects, I concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4873039. Public record. Not legal advice.