 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Express Enter. v. Waites, 1060082,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, July 6, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a pawnshop's customer might have been tangentially affected by the Alabama Pawnshop Act, because he was not directly affected in the manner necessary to confer standing upon him sufficient to raise an equal-protection issue, the trial court erred in granting him partial summary judgment declaring Ala. Code § 5-19A-7(a) unconstitutional.
|
|||||
| H&S Homes, L.L.C. v. McDonald, 1051556,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, July 6, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a seller's agents were never dismissed from a buyer's action for fraud, conversion, and wantonness in accordance with Ala. R. Civ. P. 41, the seller was exonerated the seller from vicarious liability for the agents' torts and entitled the seller to a judgment as a matter of law.
|
|||||
| Harrison v. Anderson, 1060300,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, July 6, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the second and third beneficiaries did not violate the in terrorem provision of a will, as said clause mandated forfeiture for contests against the distributive acts of the executor, rather than to the dispositional acts of the testator, their objections to the latter did not fall within the purview of the in terrorem provision.
|
|||||
| Pinigis v. Regions Bank, 1060474,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, July 6, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Executrix's suit against a bank for its payment of allegedly unauthorized checks drawn on decedent's account was properly dismissed due to customer's failure to notify bank within 180 days. This notice requirement in Ala. Code § 7-4-406(f) was an absolute rule of repose, the operation of which was not conditioned on bank's exercise of good faith.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
