 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Alfa Mut. Ins. Co. v. Meroney, 2030665,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, May 12, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's judgment that held special interrogatory to be improper regarding whether the insured expected or intended the injury or damage, denied judgment to the insurance company, and declared that it had to indemnify the insured was reversed, as jury's answer to that interrogatory meant insurance company did not have to indemnify insured.
|
|||||
| Bosarge Offshore, LLC v. Compass Bank, 1041871,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, May 12, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a bank officer issued a letter of credit to plaintiffs, but bank later advised them that it would not honor that letter, plaintiffs failed to prove fraud under Ala. Code § 6-5-101 as they failed establish that they detrimentally relied upon any allegedly fraudulent misrepresentation by the bank.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Coley, 1050054,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, May 12, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no error in denying a driver's motion to transfer a wrongful death suit under Ala. Code § 6-3-2(a)(3). There was conflicting evidence as to whether the driver, a college student in Perry County who had previously lived in Jefferson County, intended to change domicile, and in such cases a presumption favored the original domicile.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Harris, 1041332,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, May 12, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of Criminal Appeals' ruling case relied on by inmate did not apply retroactively to Batson claim did not conflict with cases inmate cited. Claim Court of Criminal Appeals erred in rejecting ineffective assistance claim based on alleged failure of counsel to maintain continuity of representation was procedurally barred as not raised at trial.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Mendel, 1050045,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, May 12, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Patient alleged she lacked informed consent and her dentist made fraudulent representations because he failed to disclose suspensions of his license. Disciplinary information in Alabama Board of Dental Examiners' possession was privileged, but such information in the dentist's possession could be discoverable under Ala. Code § 22-21-8(b).
|
|||||
| Ex parte Smith, 1050607,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, May 12, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in finding attorney-client privilege belonged exclusively to company and not to outside directors; they and law firm were free to form their own attorney-client relationship to which company was not a party, and, thus, ruling granting trustee's motion to compel production of alleged privileged communications had to be vacated.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Town of Lowndesboro, 1041071,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, May 12, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When petitioners brought a declaratory judgment suit challenging a state agency's approval of a landfill, Ala. Const. art. I, § 14 prohibited an award of interim attorney fees and expenses to petitioners. Even if the declaratory judgment suit was not barred by § 14, the award divested the state treasury of funds in the very way forbidden by § 14.
|
|||||
| Jones v. Kassouf & Co., P.C., 1040989,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, May 12, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where plaintiffs knew that any fraud by accounting firm's former employee must have occurred during his tenure at the firm, and over three years after they sued firm they amended their complaint to assert fraud and suppression claims against it, the fraud claim was time-barred under Ala. Code § 6-2-38(l).
|
|||||
| Mantiply v. Mantiply, 1031916, 1040006,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, May 12, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was error to grant summary judgment on a quantum meruit claim, as there was a factual question as to whether defendant had knowingly accepted the benefit of plaintiff's services and whether plaintiff expected compensation. An equitable mortgage claim violated the statute of frauds, and the partial performance exception was not satisfied.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
