 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Dempsey v. Dempsey, 2040068,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, June 3, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in awarding a wife a portion of her husband's military-retirement benefits, pursuant to Ala. Code § 30-2-51(b), and pursuant to the 10-year rule, as the parties had not been married for 10 years or more at the time the wife filed her complaint for divorce.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Bolen, 1040540,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, June 3, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Injured parties were entitled to mandamus relief, reinstating a default judgment, where the trial court set aside the same without the jurisdiction to do so. Moreover, an agreement to continue a hearing was not the same as an agreement to extend the time during which a postjudgment motion could remain pending.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Flexible Prods. Co., 1040450,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, June 3, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case consolidating actions in which 1,675 plaintiffs were allegedly exposed to isocyanate, mandamus relief was granted directing that the common issues be tried together but was denied as to the possibility that collateral estoppel might arise, regarding venue as to three plaintiffs, and as to a special master presiding over jury trials.
|
|||||
| G.B. v. J.H., 2040065,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, June 3, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a finding that a father was voluntarily unemployed or underemployed was implicit in the record, although not expressed, the appeals court concluded that the trial court made such finding to support its judgment. However, that part of the judgment which omitted the parties' visitation agreement was reversed.
|
|||||
| Kevin Sharp Enters. v. State ex rel. Tyson, 2040063,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, June 3, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In light of the timing of a state supreme court advisory opinion, a corporation's argument that it did not have "fair warning" that its gaming machines might violate Alabama's criminal gambling statutes and, therefore, that those machines would be subject to forfeiture pursuant to Ala. Code § 13A-12-20, was rejected.
|
|||||
| Masterbrand Cabinets, Inc. v. Johnson, 2030409,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, June 3, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee was properly granted permanent and total disability benefits after she was placed at MMI, and her surgeon's responses to hypothetical questions did not alter that finding. Further, because the employee experienced debilitating pain to other parts of her body due to a scheduled injury, she was not limited to a scheduled injury award.
|
|||||
| Pontius v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 1030974,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, June 3, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Despite the fact that the trial court properly dismissed a personal representative's breach of contract and bad faith claims because the claims were not ripe for adjudication, said dismissal was ordered modified to be without prejudice to her right to refile those claims.
|
|||||
| Roux v. Hamby, 2030852,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, June 3, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a child custody matter, when the trial court entered a supplemental order, the appeals court's judgment in a first case was not final because the mother's application for rehearing was pending and the appeals court had not issued a certificate of judgment. Thus, the trial court had no jurisdiction to enter the supplemental order.
|
|||||
| Webb Wheel Prods. v. Hanvey, 1030272,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, June 3, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an employee failed to establish by the evidence that there was a termination of employment, an essential element of his retaliatory-discharge claim but instead showed that he was subject to being recalled by the employer and was indeed recalled, the employer was erroneously denied judgment as a matter of law on said claim.
|
|||||
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. |
