Greg Shaw

No legislative voting record (judicial candidate)

Greg Shaw has not held legislative office. Under the principal's judicial rule the record lane is official rulings and opinions; see the Opinions items. Checked 2026-09-24.

On the Nov. 3, 2026 general election ballot for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Place 8 — Republican

Name on ballot: “GREG SHAW”, Republican, opposed by AshLeigh Meyer Dunham (Democrat). Both party primaries were uncontested. Incumbent since Jan. 20, 2009. Judicial candidate: the record lane is official rulings and opinions, not votes. 'In their words' is limited to the candidate's own campaign statements (Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics, Canon 7).

On the Nov 3, 2026 general ballot — Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Place 8

Republican nominee · certified

Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Place 8 · AL-SUPCT-8

Republican · Incumbent · On the 2026 ballot

Wrote the Court's opinion: Ex parte Jackson Hospital & Clinic, Inc. (Johnson v. Jackson Hospital) (SC-2023-0601)

Jackson Hospital is immune from wrongful-death claims under both the Alabama COVID Immunity Act (ACIA), §§6-5-792 and -794, and Governor Ivey's May 8, 2020 emergency proclamation, which provided independent liability protection for health-care providers treating COVID-19 patients; plaintiff failed to present clear and convincing evidence of wanton conduct needed to pierce the immunity. Shaw's writing: Shaw held in both writings that the trial court fundamentally misread §6-5-793: that subsection applies only when a court determines that neither §6-5-792, nor §6-5-794, nor any gubernatorial emergency order provides immunity—a threshold condition that was not met here since the May 8 proclamation did provide immunity. In the special concurrence, Shaw directly addressed Parker, C.J.'s dissent, explaining that Jackson Hospital's immunity rested squarely on the ACIA rather than solely on executive orders. Vote line: Wise, Sellers, Mendheim, and Mitchell, JJ., concur. Shaw, J., concurs specially, with opinion. Bryan and Stewart, JJ., concur in the result. Parker, C.J., dissents, with opinion. Disposition: Petition granted; writ issued directing circuit court to enter summary judgment for Jackson Hospital on all claims.

Concurred specially, with opinion: LePage v. Center for Reproductive Medicine, P.C. (consolidated with Burdick-Aysenne v. Center for Reproductive Medicine, P.C.) (SC-2022-0515, SC-2022-0579)

Majority (Mitchell, J.): Alabama's Wrongful Death of a Minor Act applies to all unborn children without exception, including frozen embryos destroyed outside the womb. Shaw's writing: Shaw wrote separately to counter Justice Cook's dissent, which argued that common-law background limited 'child' to born persons; Shaw responded that the Act's plain text and Alabama's statutory definition of 'person' in the Right to Life of Unborn Children Act (§26-23B-2), which defines 'person' to include 'an unborn child,' independently compel the same result the majority reached. Vote line: Wise, Bryan, JJ., concur. Parker, C.J., concurs specially, with opinion. Shaw, J., concurs specially, with opinion, which Stewart, J., joins. Mendheim, J., concurs in the result, with opinion. Sellers, J., concurs in the result in part and dissents in part, with opinion. Cook, J., dissents, with opinion. Disposition: Affirmed in part, reversed in part, remanded (same result as majority).

Wrote the Court's opinion: JT Construction, LLC v. MW Industrial Services, Inc. (1200066)

The Walker Circuit Court's award of declaratory and injunctive relief to a subcontractor in a construction-contract dispute was erroneous because the court misinterpreted the parties' contract, which did not support the relief granted; the proper reading of the contractual provisions required judgment for the defendant general contractor. Shaw's writing: Shaw reversed the trial court's declaratory judgment and injunction, holding that when the contract unambiguously addresses the disputed payment and termination rights, a court may not rewrite those provisions or grant equitable relief inconsistent with the parties' express agreement. Disposition: Reversed and remanded.

Wrote the Court's opinion: Ex parte Bradshaw (Gregory v. Bradshaw) (1190765)

A Florida resident who moved from Alabama in 2006 and made only infrequent, unrelated trips back to Alabama is not subject to personal jurisdiction in Alabama for a personal-injury action arising from an accident that occurred entirely outside of Alabama; neither general nor specific personal jurisdiction is established. Shaw's writing: Shaw held that for specific jurisdiction the plaintiff's claims must arise directly from or relate to the defendant's Alabama-directed contacts, and that Bradshaw's sporadic, unrelated visits to Alabama bore no nexus to Gregory's claims; for general jurisdiction, Bradshaw's contacts were not sufficiently 'continuous and systematic' to render Alabama his 'home' forum. Vote line: Parker, C.J., and Bolin, Wise, Bryan, Sellers, Mendheim, Stewart, and Mitchell, JJ., concur. Disposition: Petition granted; writ issued directing circuit court to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Wrote the Court's opinion: Moore v. Estate of Moore (1180482)

ERISA preempts the prenuptial agreement's waiver of the surviving spouse's rights to the decedent's 401(k) plan and pension plan benefits; under ERISA, a surviving spouse's beneficiary right to retirement-plan proceeds can be waived only through a proper written QDRO or spousal consent in the plan documents, not through an ante-nuptial contract. Shaw's writing: Shaw held that ERISA's comprehensive regulation of employee-benefit plan beneficiary designations preempts Alabama contract law on prenuptial waivers of retirement benefits, so the prenuptial agreement's broad waiver of retirement-account rights was unenforceable against the plan proceeds that ERISA directed to the surviving spouse. Disposition: Affirmed (summary judgment in favor of plaintiff/executor affirmed).

Wrote the Court's opinion: Ex parte Merrill (Tuggle v. Alabama Secretary of State John Merrill) (1170216)

Plaintiffs seeking injunctive relief requiring election officials to preserve digital images of paper ballots lacked standing because their alleged injuries—that the failure to preserve images 'could' impair the accuracy of a hypothetical future election contest—were entirely speculative, not concrete or imminent; the actual paper ballots, which would be the best evidence, are retained. Shaw's writing: Shaw authored both the main opinion granting mandamus and a special concurrence noting that Alabama's standing doctrine is not always co-extensive with the federal Lujan test but agreed that even under state law, allegations that a harm 'could' occur in a future election are insufficient to establish standing for injunctive relief. Vote line: Stuart, C.J., and Bolin, Parker, Main, Wise, Bryan, Mendheim, and Mitchell, JJ., concur. Disposition: Petition granted; writ issued directing circuit court to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Wrote the Court's opinion: Ex parte Alfa Mutual Insurance Company (Lang v. Alfa Mutual) (1141038)

A trial court abuses its discretion under Rule 15, Ala. R. Civ. P., when it allows an amendment that adds a claim (oral modification of an insurance policy) that is clearly time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations; where the proposed amendment would be futile because the new theory is facially untimely, permitting the amendment is subject to mandamus review. Shaw's writing: Shaw held that where an amended complaint would introduce a new legal theory—here, that an insurance agent orally promised to add coverage for barns that were destroyed—that is plainly barred by limitations that expired years earlier, a court cannot grant leave to amend, and mandamus is the appropriate remedy to correct such an abuse of discretion. Disposition: Petition granted; writ issued directing circuit court to strike the amended complaint. Pre-portal opinion: the Appellate Courts public portal shows no public case page (caseAccess false); source is the Court's released-decisions index.

Concurred specially, with opinion: Ex parte State of Alabama (Moyers capital bail) (1130611)

Majority (Main, J.): Under Alabama law, a defendant charged with a capital offense—including one punishable only by life imprisonment without parole, not the death penalty—may be denied bail when the evidence is clear and convincing; Ex parte Patel's citation of Roan v. State addresses only the quantum of evidence required, not a new definition of capital offense. Shaw's writing: Shaw concurred to clarify that Ex parte Patel's quotation from Roan v. State should be read only as describing what evidence suffices to deny bail, not as narrowing the definition of capital offense; the definition established in Ex parte Bynum (which includes LWOP crimes) controls, so bail can be denied even when the death penalty is not a sentencing option. Vote line: Main, Stuart, Bolin, Parker, Murdock, Wise, and Bryan, JJ., concur. Shaw, J., concurs specially. Disposition: Reversed (Court of Criminal Appeals' order reversed; trial court's denial of bail reinstated).

Wrote the Court's opinion: Ex parte Shelby County Board of Equalization (Central Shelby Ltd. v. Shelby County Board of Equalization) (1130017)

Section 40-3-25, Ala. Code 1975, requires a taxpayer challenging a final ad valorem tax assessment to file a notice of appeal with both the circuit court clerk AND the secretary of the Board of Equalization within 30 days; the taxpayer's failure to file with the Board's secretary within 30 days is a jurisdictional defect that deprives the circuit court of jurisdiction. Shaw's writing: Shaw held that §40-3-25's two-notice requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional, and that mailing of the notice to the Board by the circuit court clerk after the deadline expired did not satisfy the statutory requirement because the taxpayer—not the clerk—bore the obligation to give timely notice to both tribunals. Disposition: Petition granted; writ issued directing circuit court to dismiss the untimely tax appeal. Pre-portal opinion: the Appellate Courts public portal shows no public case page (caseAccess false); source is the Court's released-decisions index.

Concurred in the result, with opinion: Ankrom v. State; Ex parte Ankrom (Kimbrough v. State consolidated) (1110176, 1110219)

Majority (Stuart, J.): The word 'child' in §26-15-3.2, Ala. Code 1975 (chemical-endangerment statute), unambiguously includes unborn children, because all standard dictionaries define 'child' as 'an unborn or recently born person'; the legislature's intent analysis is neither necessary nor appropriate when the statutory text is clear. Shaw's writing: Shaw concurred that 'child' plainly encompasses unborn persons per dictionary definition and agreed with the result, but wrote separately to note that he concurred only in part with the main opinion because some of its analysis went beyond what the unambiguous text required; he also addressed constitutional arguments by observing that the State has a legitimate interest in protecting unborn children from the earliest stages of development. Vote line: Bolin, Stuart, Parker, Main, Malone, Murdock, Wise, Woodall, JJ., concur or concur in result. Shaw, J., concurs in part and concurs in the result. Disposition: Affirmed (chemical-endangerment convictions upheld for mothers who used controlled substances while pregnant). Pre-portal opinion: the Appellate Courts public portal shows no public case page (caseAccess false); source is the Court's released-decisions index.