[DOWNLOAD] "Roy Burdeshaw v. James White" by Supreme Court of Alabama # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free

📘 Read Now     📥 Download

eBook details

• Title: Roy Burdeshaw v. James White
• Author : Supreme Court of Alabama
• Release Date : January 26, 1991
• Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
• Pages : * pages
• Size : 64 KB

Description

The plaintiff, Roy Burdeshaw, individually and as the representative of a class composed of rural landowners in Houston County,
Alabama, appeals from a summary judgment for the defendants, James Sizemore, in his official capacity as commissioner of revenue
for the State of Alabama; John L. Napier, in his official capacity as revenue commissioner for Houston County; and Robert
Crowder, in his official capacity as chairman of the Houston County Commission, in this action challenging the method used
to determine the current use valuation of land for ad valorem tax purposes as being contrary to Act No. 135 of the Second
Special Session of the Alabama Legislature of 1978, and further seeking a refund of excess taxes collected in the years 1979,
1980, and 1981. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. Burdeshaw filed his complaint in the Houston Circuit Court on June 22, 1989. On October 2, 1989, Burdeshaw filed a motion
for a summary judgment, supported by the deposition of defendant Napier, and on October 3, 1989, the trial court scheduled
that motion for a hearing on October 24, 1989. On October 18, 1989, the defendants filed a motion for a summary judgment,
a motion to consolidate both summary judgment motions for disposition, and a motion to schedule a later hearing date to allow
for additional discovery. The trial court granted the defendants' motion on October 19, 1989, rescheduling the hearing for
December 4, 1989. On November 22, 1989, the defendants filed a copy of the record in Hollis v. White, CV-84-5061, in support
of their summary judgment motion. In Hollis, another rural landowner in Houston County had filed an action in Houston Circuit
Court, substantially similar to the present one, on behalf of himself and seeking to represent a class composed of other rural
landowners similarly situated. Two of the attorneys representing Burdeshaw in the present action also represented the plaintiff
in Hollis. Hollis, which the parties stipulate in their respective briefs was never certified as a class action, resulted
in the plaintiff's complaint being dismissed with prejudice under Rule 25(a), A.R.Civ.P. No appeal was taken from that dismissal.

Free PDF Books "Roy Burdeshaw v. James White" Online ePub Kindle