 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Boykin v. Law, 1041058,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, June 9, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When defendant, ordered to pay a victim restitution, got a monthly annuity and then died, the annuity's commutation and its payment to the victim, under Ala. Code § 15-18-144, could not be ordered as defendant could not commute the annuity, and, when commuted due to his death, it was the property of a beneficiary who had no duty to pay restitution.
|
|||||
| Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Williams, 1050177,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, June 9, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a commercial transportation policy did not extend coverage as a temporary substitute vehicle to any vehicle owned by the insured, it could not qualify as a temporary substitute vehicle for purposes of coverage under said policy. Thus, the trial court erred in declaring that the insurer had to extend the insured coverage for the same.
|
|||||
| Cincinnati Ins. Cos. v. Barber Insulation, Inc,, 1050485,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, June 9, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A subcontractor was not liable to an insurer as owners' subrogee in breach of contract or in negligence because the owners were not intentional third-party beneficiaries of the subcontract nor did they detrimentally rely on it. Another subcontractor's purported settlement agreement was invalid because it did not comply with Ala. Code 34-3-21.
|
|||||
| Davis v. Hanson Aggregates Southeast, Inc., 1040857, 1040940, 1040945,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, June 9, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment for quarry operators was reversed as res judicata and collateral estoppel did not apply to those plaintiffs divided pursuant to Ala. R. Civ. P. 42(b). Remaining plaintiffs did not agree to be bound by jury verdict as to public nuisance claim tried by trial plaintiffs and scheduling order also did not so provide.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Carson, 1050518,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, June 9, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a petitioner should have been required to pay only one filing fee for his Ala. R. Crim. P. 32 petition challenging two convictions, he was granted mandamus relief directing the circuit court to order the circuit clerk to charge him a single filing fee, the amount of which was to be set by the circuit court under Ala. Code § 12-19-71.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Estate of Reynolds, 1041533,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, June 9, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As conduct by a state agent and a state-employed decedent in making road repairs was not too remote from the execution of government policy and partook of planning level activities involving the exercise of discretion, they were entitled to mandamus relief directing summary judgment to be entered in their favor based on their state-agent immunity.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Gillentine, CR-05-1308,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, June 9, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Failure to give reasonable doubt instruction was structural error destroying validity of trial court proceedings and meant they were an absolute nullity; thus, the State could retry defendant on capital murders charge despite his conviction for lesser offense of manslaughter, and trial court could deny him bail under Ala. Const. art. I, § 16.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Phillips, 1040526,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, June 9, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Harris v. Cook, 2041079,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, June 9, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an Ala. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2) motion was untimely filed, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain it, and thus erred in granting the same. As a result, the judgment was void, and the appeal taken from the same was dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
