 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Atlanta Cas. Co. v. Russell, 1991559,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, April 20, 2001, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The material difference between appellees' policy and the policy imputed to the class destroyed commonality by introducing an endorsement applicable only to the class representatives, divorcing them from the interests of the class.
|
|||||
| Blackburn v. Blackburn, 2000179,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, April 20, 2001, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in holding appellant in contempt for child support arrearages when the trial court deviated from child support guidelines without making a written finding as to why the guidelines were inapplicable.
|
|||||
| Estes v. Ashurst, 2991098,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, April 20, 2001, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court abused discretion by dismissing action for failure to prosecute where judge did not set deadline for plaintiff's new counsel to file appearance, counsel did not receive notice of dismissal, and parties proceeded with case for a year.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Allen, 1991656, 1991707,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, April 20, 2001, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court erred in denying plaintiff's motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiff demonstrated the existence of an arbitration agreement in a written contract substantially affecting interstate commerce, which shifted the burden.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Carroll, 1990908,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, April 20, 2001, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court imposing death sentence failed to state specific reasons for giving jury's recommendation of life in prison consideration, so matter had to be remanded to give trial judge opportunity to amend sentencing order.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Palm Harbor Homes, Inc., 1000201,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, April 20, 2001, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In dispute over contract for mobile home purchase, trial court did err that arbitration was to be in accordance with installment contract. Trial court did err in holding state's arbitration act applied.
|
|||||
| Fludd v. Gibbs, 2991180,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, April 20, 2001, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In divorce proceeding, court did not err in finding wife in criminal and civil contempt for violations of court orders. Acts justified court's ruling to resort to coercive and punitive measures and did not result in prejudice.
|
|||||
| Gardner v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2991183,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, April 20, 2001, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly granted defendants judgment as matter of law on claims of breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation where employment contract was clearly terminable at will and intent to deceive not shown.
|
|||||
| HealthSouth Rehab. Corp. v. Falcon Mgmt. Co., 1990995,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, April 20, 2001, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because plaintiff could have expected to receive its rents over the term of the lease, the accelerated-rent clause was enforceable under Alabama law.
|
|||||
| K.B. Weygand & Assocs., P.C. v. Deerwood Lake Land Co., 1991216, 1991344,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, April 20, 2001, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The judgment was based on the trial court's finding that respondent's plans did not sufficiently provide for water drainage from the roadbed. The undisputed evidence showed drains were not within the engineer's work scope in road designing.
|
|||||
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. |
