 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Allen v. Allen, 2050494,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, April 6, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the trial court did not modify a father's child support obligation pursuant to Ala. R. Jud. Admin. 32(B)(9), but under the basic child-support guidelines, and Rule 32(B)(9) did not apply given that the father never had primary physical custody of his two children, modification of his child support obligation was upheld on appeal.
|
|||||
| Associated Grocers of the South, Inc. v. Goodwin, 2050574,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, April 6, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was affirmed as clear and convincing evidence was not required under Ala. Code § 25-5-81(c), even though case involved cardiac death, as dependent alleged that motor vehicle accident precipitated employee's sudden cardiac death. No evidence showed that death resulted from gradual deterioration or cumulative physical stress due to job.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Baptist Health Sys., 1041914,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, April 6, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Writ of certiorari was quashed because trial court's order did not state sum certain for amount of past medical expenses due in workers' compensation claim, and, thus, order was not final. Order of intermediate appellate court affirming judgment was void. Certiorari was not available since employer had right to appeal after final judgment.
|
|||||
| F.I. v. State Dep't of Human Res., 2051079,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, April 6, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Case was remanded as finding that Alabama Department of Human Resources (DHR) had made reasonable efforts to rehabilitate father and that they had failed was unsupported by record, which revealed that DHR had little, if any, contact with father. Determination was required as to whether father had abandoned child under Ala. Code § 26-18-7(a)(1).
|
|||||
| H.M.J. v. S.L.A., 2050973,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, April 6, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appeal was dismissed as Ala. Code § 12-15-30(b)(6) vested exclusive original jurisdiction of termination of parental rights proceedings in juvenile courts, and trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to enter judgment that purported to terminate parental rights of husband. That portion of judgment was void and would not support appeal.
|
|||||
| Hodges v. Gulf Highlands Dev., L.L.C., 2050764,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, April 6, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a letter written by a county zoning administrator could not form the basis for an appeal, and the issue before the circuit court was predominately a legal one in which two developers were not required to exhaust their administrative remedies, the local board of zoning adjustment was properly enjoined from hearing an appeal.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. Jefferson Smurfit Corp., 2050501,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, April 6, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Kimbrell v. Kimbrell, 2050559,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, April 6, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was affirmed as father did not request that judgment approving move of children out-of-state based on recusal of trial judge until after denial of second postjudgment motion under Ala. R. Civ. P. 59(e), and father did not request relief under Ala. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) based on conflict until he learned that new trial would not be ordered.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
