 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| C.P. v. W.M., 2010068,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, June 14, 2002, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly awarded custody of child to his grandparents, as they met their burden under Ex parte Terry to show that mother, who lived in 17 places in 11 years and had an abusive relationship with her spouse, was unfit to care for her son.
|
|||||
| Conseco Fin. Corp. -- Ala. v. Boone, 1000821,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, June 14, 2002, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in finding that a manufactured home buyer who signed an installment contract was not required to arbitrate her claim against a financial corporation, because an arbitration provision in the contract compelled the arbitration.
|
|||||
| Devan Lowe, Inc. v. Stephens, 2001088,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, June 14, 2002, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In garnishment action, evidence supported finding that debtor set up business entity in order to prevent lender from finding debtor's assets. Entity was created after debtor was served with lender's lawsuit accusing debtor of defaulting on loan.
|
|||||
| Donoghue v. Am. Nat'l Ins. Co., 1001926,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, June 14, 2002, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Due to the alleged tortious actions of the insurer and its agent, the insured may have been paying for something that did not exist and never would exist; consequently, he suffered injury sufficient to ripen his claims.
|
|||||
| Eiland v. Meherin, 2001219,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, June 14, 2002, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Subrogation award to insurer should have been reduced by a reasonable attorney's fee, since insurer relied on auto accident victim's attorney to protect its subrogation interest and the work generated a "common fund."
|
|||||
| Ex parte Cain, 1001030,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, June 14, 2002, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Mandamus was issued, compelling vacation of arbitration order, where evidence failed to show contract to arbitrate and unilateral disclosure of provision in homeowner's guide was insufficient to show homebuyer's acceptance.
|
|||||
| Ex parte E. Ala. Health Care Auth., 1001502,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, June 14, 2002, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the second medical center did not complete its facility by the contract deadline, its certificate of need expired and the subsequent administrative proceeding was not a "judicial proceeding" that tolled the time.
|
|||||
| Ex parte LaMoreaux, 1000522,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, June 14, 2002, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in considering stock's value in dividing marital property where no evidence supported finding that the stock or its dividends were used for the common benefit of the parties during the marriage.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Webb, 1000789,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, June 14, 2002, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court erred in adjudicating defendant's case; the trial court did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of the case, as the issue of whether the case was properly transferred to the trial court was on appeal at the time.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Williams, 1001054,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, June 14, 2002, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Crucial statement of law in a published opinion on direct appeal was not a holding but dictum, and was not law of the case. Dictum was mistaken. Appellate counsel was not ineffective for not challenging sufficiency of mens rea evidence.
|
|||||
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. |
