 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Cochran v. Ward, 1041361,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, January 27, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a jury verdict form used applied only to legal fraud in a case for compensatory and punitive damages relating to the installation of a metal roof, an appellate court deemed the total award of $ 350,000 represented compensatory damages and was correct, particularly since the trial court denied the installer's motion for a new trial.
|
|||||
| Deakle v. Childs, 2040595,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, January 27, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in entering summary judgment against daughter as determinative question in action seeking to set aside real property conveyance for fraud was not whether decedent delivered deed to caregiver, but was question of fact inappropriate for summary judgment--whether decedent intended to convey property to daughter.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Benford, 1040790,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, January 27, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judge declared mistrial because jury venire had not been sworn (though jury had been). As this defect was not jurisdictional but could have been waived by defendants if afforded opportunity to do so, there was no manifest necessity warranting a mistrial, and as jeopardy had attached, a later trial would violate Fifth Amendment double jeopardy ban.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Cherry, 1040646, 1040474,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, January 27, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Death of defendant while motion was pending for rehearing on appeal of convictions of murder in the bombing deaths of four little girls 40 years earlier deprived courts of any further appellate jurisdiction; motion to vacate convictions was properly denied.
|
|||||
| Gulf Beach Hotel, Inc. v. State ex rel. Whetstone, 1041643, 1050044,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, January 27, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State's declaratory judgment action pursuant to Declaratory Judgment Act, Ala. Code ¿¿ 6-6-220 through 6-6-232, did not allege a justiciable controversy, but was an attempt to obtain an advisory opinion; thus, trial court's order attempting to add the hotel as a party was void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and order had to be vacated.
|
|||||
| Hambright v. Hambright, 2040837,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, January 27, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in denying mother's motion, under Ala. R. Civ. P. 55(c), to set aside default judgment because mother made allegations that, if proven, would constitute complete defense to father's motion for change of custody; the mother filed response to motion before matter was tried; and the case involved the important issue of child custody.
|
|||||
| Hubbard v. Hubbard, 2040481,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, January 27, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A former husband's appeal from a trial court's decision with respect to property division in a divorce case was dismissed because the trial court purported to retain jurisdiction to modify the property division based upon future events, and thus, it had not entered a final judgment reviewable by the court on appeal.
|
|||||
| Prince v. Poole, 1030755,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, January 27, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a letter among attorneys did not contain a merger clause as to the parties' purported agreement to split attorney fees and only accomplished a partial integration of the parties' agreement, a trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the plaintiff under Ala. R. Civ. P. 56(c) as genuine issues of material fact required resolution.
|
|||||
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. |
