# City of Mobile v. Weinacker

> Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · April 17, 1998 · 720 So. 2d 953

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9936747

## Case

- **Full name:** City of Mobile, a Municipal Corporation v. Marcia G. Weinacker
- **Court:** Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama
- **Decided:** April 17, 1998
- **Citations:** 720 So. 2d 953; 1998 WL 178795
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Crawley
- **Judges:** Crawley, Monroe
- **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/9936747

## Opinion text

I concur in the affirmance of the trial court's judgment holding a portion of the city's sign ordinance unconstitutional. However, I question whether the issue of standing must be raised before the trial court. I note that the Court of Criminal Appeals has indeed held that the issue of standing must be raised before the trial court or else is waived on appeal, see Cook v. State , 574 So.2d 905 , 908
(Ala.Crim.App. 1990), and I agree that the application of that principle, if it is correct, bars the City's argument in this case. However, if, as has often been stated, an appellate court "will not pass upon a constitutional question unless some specific right of the appellant is directly involved," State v. Woodruff , 460 So.2d 325 , 328 (Ala.Crim.App. 1984), then I question whether it is incumbent upon a party to raise before the trial court the issue of standing to challenge the constitutionality of a statute. See Kinard v. Jordan , 646 So.2d 1380 , 1383 n. 5 and 1388 (Ala. 1994) (stating that the trial court should not have reached the constitutional issue and reversing the judgment based on that issue).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9936747. Public record. Not legal advice.