 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Borcicky v. Borcicky, 2980955,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 18, 2000, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Child support modification was denied on basis of unclean hands, but application of equitable doctrine to alimony payment was limited by statutory requirement that alimony ended if spouse was cohabiting with opposite sex.
|
|||||
| Deaton, Inc. v. Monroe, 1981549,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, February 18, 2000, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment for defendants was affirmed, in plaintiff's suit challenging constitutionality of a statute, because plaintiff's complaint failed to state a ground on which relief could have been granted.
|
|||||
| Dickerson v. Deno, 1981392, 1981393,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, February 18, 2000, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An oral agreement among co-workers and a lottery ticketholder to share the proceeds of a winning lottery ticket was unenforceable and void because it was founded on a gambling consideration.
|
|||||
| Evans v. Cotton, 2981428,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 18, 2000, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where there was a question concerning whether employee actually struck the inmate with the van and he was not performing a discretionary function and was not entitled to qualified immunity, summary judgment was reversed.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Krothapalli, 1981354,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, February 18, 2000, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant doctor's petition for writ of mandamus was granted, since his personnel files, which plaintiff sought from two hospitals where he worked, were privileged under Alabama's peer-review statute.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Martin, 1972036,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, February 18, 2000, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment allocating ownership interest in property was reversed because deed unambiguously granted one-third interest to each party and extrinsic evidence was improperly considered. Attorney fee request was properly denied.
|
|||||
| Fincher v. Watts, 2981011,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 18, 2000, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Award of an attorney fee in child support dispute was reversed since there was a great disparity between the parties' incomes, and the proceeding did not involve protracted litigation or complex legal issues.
|
|||||
| Henderson v. Henderson, 2981092,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 18, 2000, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where wife was not employed for 10 years due to illness, and had no retirement of her own, it was inequitable to deny her share of husband's retirement after 34 years of marriage, alimony, and attorney's fee.
|
|||||
| Jones v. Wedgworth Pest Control, Inc., 2981440,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 18, 2000, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff employer's noncompetition agreement could not be enforced without plaintiff meeting its burden of proof of showing that the agreement was not void under a state statute.
|
|||||
| Mobile City Planning Comm'n v. Stanley, 2980828,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 18, 2000, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Grant of a petition for a writ of mandamus was affirmed, because respondent city planning commission based its decision to approve resubdivision of land on developer's misleading testimony.
|
|||||
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. |
