 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Dan Wachtel Ford, Lincoln, Mercury, Inc. v. Modas, 1022087,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, April 9, 2004, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As auto sale involved interstate commerce, and buyer's conversion, trespass, and other claims arose out of purchase transaction, trial court erred by denying defendant dealer's motion to compel arbitration pursuant to parties' arbitration agreement.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Morrow, 1021059,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, April 9, 2004, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant laid the proper predicate for an in camera inspection of a witness's prior statements where he established the existence of the prior statements and provided sufficient verification of the existence of a verbatim statement.
|
|||||
| Waite v. Waite, 2030017,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, April 9, 2004, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in dismissing an action on its own motion based upon affirmative defenses not asserted by defendants; affirmative defenses were not jurisdictional bases upon which a court could base a sua sponte dismissal.
|
|||||
| Yohey v. Yohey, 2020884,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, April 9, 2004, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding a wife periodic alimony based, in part, on the 65-year-old unemployed husband's distributions from his sizeable individual retirement accounts.
|
|||||
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. |
