 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| 1631 Second Ave. N., L.L.C. v. Raine, 1051463,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, February 9, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly granted summary judgment to appellee sellers on the prospective buyers' action for specific performance pro tanto of its contract with the sellers; ordering specific performance would have made prospective buyer a joint owner of property with several strangers and several problems existed with the parties' underlying contract.
|
|||||
| Bd. of Sch. Comm'rs v. Dunn, 2040708,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 9, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Clark v. Kindley, 2050829,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 9, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was a fact question as to whether a mechanic was aware of and recklessly indifferent to the danger of driving a truck and trailer without lights on a dark country road at a slow rate of speed, and whether this conduct constituted wantonness under Ala. Code § 6-11-20(b)(3). A driver's wantonness claim should have been presented to the jury.
|
|||||
| Horn v. Fadal Machining Ctrs., LLC, 1051161,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, February 9, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Estate representative presented substantial evidence of elements of Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine claim, as expert opined machine was defectively designed due to foreseeability of industrial customer to bypass interlock circuit and accident could have been prevented had machine been equipped with readily available technology.
|
|||||
| Hudson v. Hudson, 2050492,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 9, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a wife's second Ala. R. Civ. P. 59 motion sought the same relief as her first motion, it did not toll the time for taking an appeal; therefore, the wife's notice of appeal, which was filed 91 days after the denial of the first motion, was untimely and was dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction under Ala. R. App. P. 4(a)(1).
|
|||||
| Kennedy v. Merriman, 2050844,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 9, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the unemployment department's appeal of a judgment in favor of the employers was filed outside the 30-day period provided in Ala. R. Civ. P. 59(e), its notice of appeal was untimely, did not invoke the jurisdiction of the appellate court, and had to be dismissed in accordance with Ala. R. App. P. 2(a)(1).
|
|||||
| N.H. v. T.A.P., 2050908,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 9, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a father made a claim for child support at trial that was not disposed of by the trial court, the mother's appeal was dismissed because the trial court's judgment was not a final judgment.
|
|||||
| Olson v. State, 2050648,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 9, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the trial court had not ruled on the State's Ala. R. Civ. P. 59 motion to alter, amend, or vacate a purported judgment, and because the purported judgment was not signed or initialed by the trial judge, as required by former Ala. R. Civ. P. 58, it was a nullity, and defendant appealed from a nonfinal judgment.
|
|||||
| Peterson v. Peterson, 2050491,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 9, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment deferring to North Carolina (NC) court's jurisdiction was affirmed as Ala. Code § 30-3B-202(a)(2) deprived trial court of jurisdiction as parents and children lived in NC when mother's petition was filed. Grandparents were not acting as parents, although children were in their custody for six months of year before petition was filed.
|
|||||
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. |
