Ex Parte Vfj Ventures v. Vfj Ventures

8 So. 3d 983, 2008 Ala. LEXIS 197, 2008 WL 4277998
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedSeptember 19, 2008
Docket1070718
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 8 So. 3d 983 (Ex Parte Vfj Ventures v. Vfj Ventures) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ex Parte Vfj Ventures v. Vfj Ventures, 8 So. 3d 983, 2008 Ala. LEXIS 197, 2008 WL 4277998 (Ala. 2008).

Opinion

LYONS, Justice.

VFJ Ventures, Inc., f/k/a VF Jeanswear, Inc. (“VFJ”), sued in the Montgomery Circuit Court the commissioner of the Alabama Department of Revenue, in his official capacity, and the Alabama Department of Revenue. At the time the complaint was filed, Dwight Carlisle was the commissioner of the Alabama Department of Revenue. During the pendency of the case, G. Thomas Surtees was substituted pursuant to Rule 25(d), Ala. R. Civ. P., as a defendant, in his official capacity, when he became the commissioner of the Alabama Department of Revenue. Tim Russell is now the commissioner of the Alabama Department of Revenue; he is now a defendant, in his official capacity, pursuant to Rule 43(b), Ala. R.App. P. (Russell and the Alabama Department of Revenue will hereinafter be referred to collectively as “the Department.”) The trial court entered a judgment in favor of VFJ. The Department appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals; that court reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the case for the entry of a judgment in favor of the Department. Surtees v. VFJ Ventures, Inc., 8 So.3d 950 (Ala.Civ.App.2008). VFJ then filed a petition for certiorari with this Court; we granted certiorari review.

After considering the record in this case, the briefs of the parties and the amici curiae, the oral arguments of the parties, and the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals, we agree with the views expressed by Presiding Judge Thompson in his thorough and well reasoned opinion. In light of that thoughtful opinion, we see no need to explicate further. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals, and we adopt Presiding Judge Thompson’s opinion in its entirety, as the opinion of this Court.

AFFIRMED.

COBB, C.J., and SEE,1 WOODALL, STUART, SMITH, BOLIN, PARKER, and MURDOCK, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Kohl's Department Stores, Inc. v. Virginia Department of Taxation
91 Va. Cir. 499 (Richmond County Circuit Court, 2016)
Morgan Stanley & Co. v. Director, Division of Taxation
28 N.J. Tax 197 (New Jersey Tax Court, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
8 So. 3d 983, 2008 Ala. LEXIS 197, 2008 WL 4277998, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-vfj-ventures-v-vfj-ventures-ala-2008.