 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ala. Dep't of Envtl. Mgmt. v. Town of Lowndesboro, 2020385,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, April 8, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ala. Const. art. I, ¿ 14 (1901) prohibited the court from awarding attorney fees against the Alabama Department of Environmental Management and in favor of a town and a landowner; the fee award, paid from the state treasury, resulted in the type of direct affect on the financial status of the state treasury that was prohibited by ¿ 14.
|
|||||
| Alfa Life Ins. Corp. v. Lewis, 1031758,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, April 8, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Decedent's incorrect answer to question on life insurance policy application about diagnosis of heart failure, while innocently given, was basis for rescission of policy. Since question was specifically asked, decedent was on notice that the insurance company considered it material. The insurance company was entitled to rescind the policy.
|
|||||
| City of Mobile v. Cooks, 1030449,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, April 8, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Owner's action against city alleging negligence in issuing a building permit to unlicensed contractor accrued when owner first paid contractor based on building permit. Owner had six months from that date to file her notice of claim. Since she failed to file her notice within that six months, her action was barred by Ala. Code ¿ 11-47-23.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Chandler, 1040484,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, April 8, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where trial court found that inmate's habeas corpus petition should have been filed as postconviction petition under Ala. R. Crim. P. 32, trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to deny petition and to tax costs to inmate, as inmate had not paid filing fee under Ala. Code ¿ 12-19-70, and he had not proceeded in forma pauperis.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Forrester, 1040235,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, April 8, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alabama estate taxes were properly held to be payable by the executor of a decedent's estate from the residue of that estate, and not a trust's corpus, because the will did not specify the source from which said taxes were to be paid, and due to the same, the default provision of Ala. Code ¿¿40-15-18 applied.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Jenkins, 1031313,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, April 8, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court erred in finding petitioner's juror misconduct claim, included for first time in his amended postconviction petition for relief filed pursuant to Ala. R. Crim. P. 32 and beyond the applicable time limitations period, barred for not relating back to the original, timely-filed pleading, although right to amend was not absolute.
|
|||||
| Hensley v. Poole, 1031504, 1031538,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, April 8, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ala. Code ¿ 6-2-38(l) barred shareholders' and corporation's claims against each other for tortious acts more than two years earlier that stemmed from breach of fiduciary duties; potentially applicable Ala. Code ¿ 6-2-34(3) six-year conversion limitations period did not apply since there was no conversion as no "identifiable" money was taken.
|
|||||
| R.C. v. L.C. , 2031155,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, April 8, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's limitation on a mother's presentation of evidence in a custody hearing was not a proper exercise of judicial discretion because such denied her due process and prohibited her from controverting the claims presented against her, despite her failure to make an offer of proof, as such would have been futile given the court's impatience.
|
|||||
| Sec. Title Guar. Corp. v. GMFS, LLC, 2030562,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, April 8, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Partial summary judgment was properly granted to lender in its breach of contract suit against insurer because, although lender did not provide timely notice of adverse claim of title, insurer's failure to deliver lender's policy within a reasonable period of time, as required by Ala. Code ¿ 27-14-19, estopped insurer from defending on such ground.
|
|||||
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. |
