 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Byrd v. Petelinski, 1980919,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, January 7, 2000, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An appeal of an adverse jury verdict was time-barred because defendant failed to file a timely notice of appeal when the trial court lost jurisdiction to rule on his post-judgment motions 90 days after the motions were filed.
|
|||||
| Courtright v. Courtright, 2980954,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, January 7, 2000, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's order dividing property and awarding periodic alimony in appellant wife and appellee husband's divorce action was not equitable, considering length of marriage and disparity in parties' incomes.
|
|||||
| Ellison v. Green, 2980922,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, January 7, 2000, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Jury verdict in favor of appellee on appellants' fraud claims was affirmed by the court, but appellee was not entitled to attorney fees, because payment of fees was neither authorized by statute nor contractually agreed.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Conaway, 1971902,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, January 7, 2000, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court reversed an order which found a real estate contract void for ambiguity and for lack of mutual assent, holding that the ambiguity did not reach the point where construction became futile.
|
|||||
| Ex parte R.T.S., 1981967,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, January 7, 2000, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court applied the ore tenus presumption that the trial court's finding that custody with appellant father was in the best interest of the parties' children.
|
|||||
| J & J Marine, Inc. v. Bay & Ocean Equip. Co., 1980617, 1980867,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, January 7, 2000, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court's orders exceeding the scope of injunctive relief and deciding issues subject to arbitration were reversed since the Federal Arbitration Act mandated that the parties' dispute involving interstate commerce be submitted to arbitration.
|
|||||
| JWM, Inc. v. Raines, 2980636,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, January 7, 2000, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court affirmed workers' compensation benefits, because appellee's work gathering trees in a nursery was work in the forestry industry, not farm labor exempt from workers' compensation coverage.
|
|||||
| Keff v. Keff, 2981413,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, January 7, 2000, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Restricted stock options were marital assets subject to division between appellant and appellee even though appellant could have lost the rights to the options if his employment was terminated or he voluntarily left the company.
|
|||||
| Murphy v. Murphy, 2981228,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, January 7, 2000, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under statute governing ownership of joint bank accounts, appellant was entitled to all of joint account with right of survivorship and one-half of joint account without right of survivorship she held with deceased.
|
|||||
| Ponds v. Ponds, 2981129,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, January 7, 2000, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court made no determination as to property appellees were to receive after appellant stepmother's homestead interest was set aside, so there was no final declaration of parties' rights that was subject to appellate jurisdiction.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Contact Us |
| Copyright® 2009 LexisNexis , a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
