 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Baptist Med. Ctr. Montclair v. Whitfield, 1041472,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, April 21, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A new trial was properly granted to an administratrix in a negligence action. Remarks made in closing arguments by a hospital's counsel that the administratrix had agreed to dismiss claims against a surgical group in order to obtain a surgeon's damaging testimony were grossly improper, highly prejudicial, and not logically based on the evidence.
|
|||||
| Carroll v. W.L. Petrey Wholesale Co., 1041466,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, April 21, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A motion to compel arbitration under Federal Arbitration Act was properly denied; shareholders' agreement that covered restricted stock transfers also provided for arbitrating disputes directly or indirectly related to agreement, but claims of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty were not related directly or indirectly to agreement's subject matter.
|
|||||
| Edgeworth v. Family Chiropractic & Health Ctr., P.C., 1041653,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, April 21, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment in favor of corporation, first doctor, and second doctor in medical malpractice case patient filed against them was affirmed; trial court's jury instruction considered in its entirety and pursuant to Ala. Code § 6-5-549 correctly informed jury of patient's burden to prove claims to jury's reasonable satisfaction by substantial evidence.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Daniels, 1040771,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, April 21, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The plain language of Ala. Code § 6-3-9 required the transfer of a negligence action filed against prison wardens by a deceased inmate's daughter from the county where the prison was located to Montgomery County. The express timing provisions of § 6-3-9 were controlling, and under those provisions the transfer request was not waived or untimely.
|
|||||
| Ex parte M.C. Dixon Family P'ship, LLLP, 2050189,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, April 21, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: On remand in a boundary line dispute, an adjacent landowner could not amend its pleadings to add a counterclaim for timber cutting because all claims related to the affected parcel had been finally adjudicated. A surveyor who had worked for the adjacent landowner was improperly appointed under Ala. Code § 35-3-22 because he was not disinterested.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Perkins, 1041735,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, April 21, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Mandamus did not lie to allow inmate any post-conviction discovery; he did not show good cause under Ala. R. Crim. P. 32 as he did not show that police files on his family would entitle him to post-conviction relief, and as some of parole board's records and his family members' conviction records were public records, he only had to ask for them.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Suzuki Mobile, Inc., 1050311 and 1050357,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, April 21, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When plaintiff alleged wrongful acts by defendants in designing, manufacturing, distributing, and selling an all-terrain vehicle, and none of these acts occurred in Choctaw County, venue there was not proper under Ala. Code § 6-3-7(a)(1). As plaintiff resided in Mobile County and one defendant did business there, venue in Mobile County was proper.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Woods, 1041615,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, April 21, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When sanctions imposed by the Department of Corrections (DOC) did not involve a liberty interest, it was error to convert an inmate's certiorari petition into a habeas petition under Ala. Code § 15-21-1. As Montgomery County was the proper venue for an action against the DOC under Ala. Code § 41-22-20(b), it was error to transfer the petition.
|
|||||
| Holcomb v. Carraway, 1041471,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, April 21, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly granted summary judgment to general surgeon and three radiologists on estate administrator's medical malpractice claims; similarly situated health care provider pursuant to Ala. Code § 6-5-548(c) was not offered regarding general surgeon and such a provider was properly barred from testifying against the three radiologists.
|
|||||
| Hooks v. Pickens, 2040569,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, April 21, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because Ala. Code § 34-14A-6(5), an exemption from the requirement that home builders be licensed, applied to owners of property, not to those performing work at the owner's direction, an unlicensed builder did not fall within the exemption and thus was prevented by Ala. Code § 34-14A-14 from suing the owner for breach of contract.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
