 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Brogden v. Durkee, 2070265,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 6, 2009, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment on breach of contract claim was affirmed as time-of-performance clause in real estate contract did not merge into deed upon delivery. Sellers breached time-of-performance clause. Although eventual delivery of deed foreclosed specific-performance remedy, it did not foreclose buyers' action to recover damages suffered due to sellers' breach.
|
|||||
| Dawsey v. Raymond James Fin. Servs., 1070861,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, February 6, 2009, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A buyer's appeal of an order denying his motion to vacate an arbitration award rendered in favor of sellers was dismissed because a conditional judgment was never entered on the arbitration award by the circuit clerk. Under Ala. Code ¿ 6-6-15, the circuit clerk was required to enter the arbitration award as the judgment of the circuit court.
|
|||||
| Duran v. Goff Group, 2070763,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 6, 2009, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was affirmed as Ala. Code ¿ 25-5-82 did not implicate dependents of employee's federal due process and equal protection rights to death benefits under Alabama Workers' Compensation Act as dependents were nonresident aliens, and not entitled to constitutional rights. Death benefits were separate from employee's rights.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Martinez, 1061237,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, February 6, 2009, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary dismissal of postconviction petition, after sua sponte applying Ala. R. Crim. P. 32.2(c) limitation period, was reversed. While application for rehearing was pending, Ex parte Clemons and Ex parte Ward were issued, addressing sua sponte application of procedural bar and equitable tolling. Petitioner did not have benefit of those rulings.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Navistar, Inc., 1071457,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, February 6, 2009, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ala. Code ¿ 6-3-21.1's interest-of-justice prong required transfer of action to another county; no legal nexus existed to burden selected forum with the action. Even though it may have been happenstance that defect evidenced itself in other county, happenstance affected lives of county's employees and citizens and provided nexus for transfer.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Russell v. Russell, 2070765,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 6, 2009, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Mandamus to dismiss class action claims against State that sought refund of overpaid ad valorum taxes and attorney's fees was granted; claims were barred by Ala. Const. art. I, ¿ 14 sovereign immunity. Claims for declaratory judgment to construe Ala. Code ¿ 40-7-60 et seq. were not barred; relief did not involve recovery from State's treasury.
|
|||||
| Fluor Enters. v. Lawshe, 2070715,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 6, 2009, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was reversed insofar as it failed to contain limiting language required by Ala. Code ¿ 25-5-77(a), and was affirmed in other respects as employer effectively transferred authority to workers' compensation claimant to choose doctor by authorizing claimant to seek treatment from doctor.
|
|||||
| Lifestar Response of Ala., Inc. v. Admiral Ins. Co., 1060776,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, February 6, 2009, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Negligence and wantonness claims against lawyers appointed by insurer to represent client under insurer's reservation of rights failed; under Ala. R. Prof. Conduct 1.8(f)(2), lawyers represented the client, not the insurer. Alleged negligence and wantonness were not imputed to the insurer, which did not control lawyers' professional judgment.
|
|||||
| Moore v. Welch, 2070709,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 6, 2009, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ala. R. Civ. P. 55(c), 56(c)(3) motions were upheld; co-employees' failure to answer complaint or appear at trial was not culpable conduct. Failure to maintain fire extinguishers was not actionable under Ala. Code ¿ 25-5-11(c)(1), (c)(2), and there was no substantial evidence that co-employee knew actions would result in employee's injury.
|
|||||
| Odom v. Smith, 2070758,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 6, 2009, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Modification of custody was proper as evidence showed that there had been a material change and that change would promote children's welfare. Mother lived in mobile home that lacked electricity and hot water and mother "popped" children in the mouth. In contrast, children earned higher grades while living with father and preferred to live with him.
|
|||||
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. |
