 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| State v. Click, CR-99-0156,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, December 17, 1999, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State's petition for writ of mandamus was granted, because defendant did not have a privilege against self-incrimination regarding his postconviction evidentiary hearing testimony.
|
|||||
| USA Petroleum Corp. v. Hines, 1980028,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, December 17, 1999, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence supported award of punitive damages for vicarious liability where employee acted within the scope of his employment and defendant employer knew or should have known of employee's unfitness for employment.
|
|||||
| Waits v. Crown Dodge Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., 2981305,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, December 17, 1999, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment in customer's negligence action seeking compensation for injuries was reversed because affidavits created question of fact as to whether defect existed at metal threshold of automobile dealer's door.
|
|||||
| Young Oil Co. v. Racetrac Petroleum, Inc., 1980144,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, December 17, 1999, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant retailer could assert meeting competition defense against plaintiffs and violation of act did not occur when defendant was placed in a below-cost selling situation due to increase in motor fuel's wholesale cost.
|
|||||
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. |
