 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ravenel v. Ravenel, 2010044,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, May 24, 2002, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Father's child support obligation was erroneously reduced after trial court mistakenly found one of parties' children was no longer a minor. Mother was obligation to father for amount of indebtedness on truck discharged by father's insurer.
|
|||||
| Rice v. English, 1010968,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, May 24, 2002, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A redistricting plan was upheld, where the new districts were within five percent of the ideal population of a senate district. The voters challenging the plan failed to overcome the presumption of constitutionality.
|
|||||
| Robinson v. Benton, 1010167,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, May 24, 2002, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Beneficiary who received one-fourth instead of one-half interest in mother's estate, because his mother's attorney failed to follow mother's instructions to destroy her will, did not have standing to sue mother's attorney for malpractice.
|
|||||
| Smith v. Tyson Foods, 2000605,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, May 24, 2002, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee was entitled to have default judgment set aside where there was no evidence employee willfully or deliberately disregarded trial court's order and nothing in record indicated that trial court applied analysis required under Kirtland.
|
|||||
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. |
