 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| B.C.M. v. H.E.C., 2031055,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 11, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in terminating a mother's parental right to object to an adoption but allowing her unrestricted visitation with the child, as said orders were inherently contradictory. Thus, the matter was remanded to specify whether the mother's rights were terminated in their entirety or not.
|
|||||
| Butler v. Roome, 1031603,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, February 11, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A preliminary injunction in an action between a majority and a minority shareholder was dissolved because in issuing the injunction, the trial court failed to comply with Ala. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2) by not stating the reasons for the injunction or that the minority shareholder would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction was not granted.
|
|||||
| Clements v. Clements, 2030768,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 11, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A mother's evidence regarding advantages of relocation rebutted the Ala. Code § 30-3-169.4 presumption that relocation was not in the child's best interests, where the mother and stepfather promised to foster the father-child relationship and the father, though loving, was completely ill-equipped to assume sole physical custody.
|
|||||
| Duncan v. S.N., 1040105,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, February 11, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where service of a summons and complaint via certified mail did not meet the requirements of either Ala. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(5) or 4(i)(2)(c), as the signatory was not authorized to receive said summons on an inmate's behalf, and no evidence showed that the signatory resided in the prison, an inmate was entitled to relief from a default judgment.
|
|||||
| Ferguson v. Baptist Health Sys., 1022175, 1030039,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, February 11, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in denying a hospital's JNOV motion on a patient's claim for punitive damages on the basis of wantonness; an error in the prescribing of drugs to the patient by a hospital pharmacy was not done knowingly, but merely negligently.
|
|||||
| Green v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 2030884,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 11, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An employee's appeal of a postjudgment motion pursuant to Ala. R. Civ. P. 59 was dismissed because the employee's notice of appeal was untimely pursuant to the 42-day time period of Ala. R. App. P. 4(a)(1) and (3) and therefore, it did not invoke the jurisdiction of the appellate court.
|
|||||
| House v. Jefferson State Cmty. College, 1031179,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, February 11, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since a computer instructor was hired by a college for a probationary period under a contract with terms that clearly required a due process hearing for a termination before expiration of the contract period, summary judgment for the college on the instructor's wrongful termination claims was improper since he was fired before the contract was up.
|
|||||
| Keibler-Thompson Corp. v. Steading, 1030907,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, February 11, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A company was granted a new trial after a worker obtained a verdict on a personal injury claim since a juror was not properly qualified to serve and since the trial court erred by submitting a combined and concurring negligence instruction.
|
|||||
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. |
