 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| AmerUs Life Ins. Co. v. Smith, 1041054,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, February 24, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Release in a class action suit did not bar an insured's claim against an insurance company pursuant to res judicata or collateral estoppel where the class action release related only to wrongdoing occurring "at or after" the issuance of insurance policies and the instant action alleged wrongdoing before the issuance of insurance policies.
|
|||||
| Connell v. Call-a-Cab, Inc., 1031731,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, February 24, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Common carrier was required to protect passengers not only against violence and insults of strangers and other passengers, but also against violence and insults of common carrier's own servants. Cab company's liability to passenger for sexual assault by cab driver could not have been avoided by claiming that driver was independent contractor.
|
|||||
| D.B. v. Madison County Dep't of Human Res., 2040919,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 24, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Finding in a permanency hearing that department made reasonable reunification efforts, and the child's placement with her maternal great aunt, were proper. However, the trial court erred in failing to set forth a specific visitation schedule. No evidence supported the absolute prohibition of telephone contact by the mother with the child.
|
|||||
| Drummond Co. v. State DOT, 1030447,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, February 24, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While an inverse-condemnation action was an exception to doctrine of state immunity, inverse-condemnation actions were to be brought against state officials in their representative capacity. Mandamus was issued to allow substitution of director of department of transportation in inverse-condemnation case, and to dismiss department from case.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Leroy Hill Coffee Co., 1050245,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, February 24, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: On the 91st day after each party had filed its postjudgment motion, pursuant to Ala. R. Civ. P. 59.1, all remaining motions were denied by operation of law. At that point, with no motions pending seeking either to increase or decrease judgment amount, evidence otherwise necessary to either defend or attack those motions became irrelevant.
|
|||||
| Flowers v. Pope, 1031964,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, February 24, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly granted summary judgment to property owner on claimant's charge that property owner was liable for injuries claimant allegedly sustained while cutting timber for employer; claimant did not show there was a "community of interest" and joint control necessary to existence of joint venture needed to find property owner liable.
|
|||||
| Ford v. Carylon Corp., 1040554,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, February 24, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment for parent company and supervisor on retaliatory discharge under Ala. Code § 25-5-11.1 was affirmed as supervisor was not employer and piercing corporate veil for parent liability was not alleged; summary judgment for employer was reversed as evidence raised issue on whether proffered reason for discharge was pretextual.
|
|||||
| Hillman v. Yarbrough, 1041205,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, February 24, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in dismissing a city employee's defamation action against the city council and a council member, as the employee presented a set of facts under which allegedly defamatory statements by the council member would not be covered by absolute privilege.
|
|||||
| Jones v. State, 1040577,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, February 24, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When the State, as opposed to the trial judge, was named as the adversary in an action seeking to recover property and currency allegedly seized unlawfully, the proceeding was to be treated as a civil action for conversion. Hence, the appropriate forum for appellate review was the Court of Civil Appeals.
|
|||||
| Schiesz v. Schiesz, 2041024,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 24, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Agreement allowing trial court additional time to rule on postjudgment motion, which agreement was filed beyond 90-day period that postjudgment motion was allowed to remain pending under Ala. R. Civ. P. 59.1, did not extend period. Motion was denied by operation of law 90 days after filing, and appeal taken more than 42 days later was untimely.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
