 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ace Title Loan, Inc. v. Crump, 1050246,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, January 16, 2009, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although the record bore no evidence that a lender filed a motion to vacate an arbitrator's decision before appealing the award under Ala. Code § 6-6-15, because the lender appealed before the decision in Horton Homes was issued, it would be unjust to deny the lender's appeal on that basis.
|
|||||
| Ala. Dep't of Pub. Safety v. Ogles, 1061539,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, January 16, 2009, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court lacked jurisdiction to amend a complaint brought against department, or to do anything but dismiss the case because department, the only named defendant in the original complaint, was entitled to absolute immunity under Ala. Const. art. I, § 14, and Alabama courts lacked jurisdiction over an action contrary to State's immunity.
|
|||||
| Brown v. GMC, 1061660,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, January 16, 2009, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Ala. Code § 7-2-725, a car buyer's cause of action against the manufacturer for breach of its contractual obligation to repair defects in the car did not accrue at the time of tender of delivery, but when the manufacturer breached that obligation. As buyer filed suit within four years of the alleged breach, the suit was not time-barred.
|
|||||
| Carr v. Int'l Ref. & Mfg. Co., 1070770,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, January 16, 2009, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As former employees alleged wanton conduct by defendants in manufacturing or selling chemicals and equipment which resulted in injury to employees, the wantonness claims were actionable in trespass and thus subject to the six-year limitations period of Ala. Code § 6-2-34(1), not Ala. Code § 6-2-38(l)'s two year period for products liability cases.
|
|||||
| Eldridge v. Eldridge, 2070684,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, January 16, 2009, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Circuit court lacked jurisdiction to review probate order because timely filing of appeal pursuant to Ala. Code § 12-22-21 was jurisdictional. Because record showed that conservator's postjudgment motion in probate court was untimely, that motion did not toll time to appeal to circuit court. Circuit court's order affirming probate order was void.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Gadsden Country Club, 1071270,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, January 16, 2009, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While the trial court's disallowance of the employer's defense to the employee's retaliation claim under Ala. Code § 25-5-11.1, was reviewable by petition for writ of mandamus, the employer's defense of "fired for cause" was not an affirmative defense and thus, the employer did not have a clear legal right to the issuance of a writ of mandamus.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Hale County Bd. of Educ., 1071094,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, January 16, 2009, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Board of education was entitled to immunity from spectator's injury claim based on breach-of-implied-contract theory because board was a state agency, and, as such, was clothed in constitutional immunity from suit by Ala. Const. art. I, § 14. Two cases which imposed an implied "right to be sued" on county boards of education were overruled.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Jenkins, 1061674,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, January 16, 2009, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was not entitled to suppress marijuana seized from his residence on the basis that the search warrant's use of the language "any/all drugs" was not specific enough to meet the particularity requirement of U.S. Const. amend. IV because marijuana and other illicit drugs would naturally be located in the same types of places.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Russell, 1070726,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, January 16, 2009, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ruling of intermediate appellate court which had overturned trial court's order modifying child custody was error because, contrary to the decision of the intermediate appellate court, a noncustodial parent did not need to prove that there was an overwhelming necessity for the change in order to support a change in custody under McLendon.
|
|||||
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. |
