 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Jordan v. Jordan, 2990949,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, May 11, 2001, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Custody order was reversed because the trial court failed to make a finding on the record as to whether domestic abuse occurred during the marriage and apply the provisions of the Custody and Domestic or Family Abuse Act.
|
|||||
| Mooneyham v. State Bd. of Chiropractic Exam'rs, 1991825,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, May 11, 2001, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a regulatory board was created by and funded by statutory authority, it was, therefore, a state agency, and entitled to absolute immunity from claims.
|
|||||
| Omni Ins. Co. v. Foreman, 1000148,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, May 11, 2001, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alabama's underinsured motorist statute did not preclude recovery by motorist who settled within tortfeasor's policy limits; she could also recover punitive damages in an appropriate case.
|
|||||
| Roberts v. Roberts, 2991247,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, May 11, 2001, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court found antenuptial agreement invalid; thus, trial court had to divide marital property. Wife received approximately 10 percent of marital assets; thus, husband did not show that trial court abused its discretion in dividing property.
|
|||||
| S.H. v. Calhoun County Dep't of Human Res., 2000042,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, May 11, 2001, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since the parents were not guilty of neglect or abuse, had maintained consistent communication and contact with the children, and had attempted to regain custody, among other factors, their rights should not have been terminated.
|
|||||
| State Bd. of Pardons & Paroles v. Brooks, 2991326,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, May 11, 2001, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alabama crime victims were entitled to statutory notice not only of formal parole hearings, but of any hearings at which evidence was to be heard of appropriateness of parole.
|
|||||
| State Dep't of Revenue v. Taft Coal Sales & Assocs., Inc., 2000111,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, May 11, 2001, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Use tax on appellee's property located in town's police jurisdiction was a revenue-generating tax; therefore the town was not required to estimate its cost of services provided to appellee in order to impose the tax.
|
|||||
| State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Carlton, 2991014,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, May 11, 2001, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Fact that employee injured by co-worker's negligence received workers compensation benefits distinguished this case from prior cases which permitted the injured party to recover uninsured motorist benefits.
|
|||||
| Watkins v. Bd. of Managers, 1992215,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, May 11, 2001, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the pension systems, as a regular part of their business, loaned the employee money to be repaid with interest, the pension systems were liable if they required the employee to secure the loan with life insurance.
|
|||||
| Wilson v. Glasheen, 2000115,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, May 11, 2001, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant father's appeal of the trial court's order in the parties' divorce action was dismissed, because the order had not yet adjudicated appellee mother's child support claim and, thus, was not a final judgment.
|
|||||
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. |
