 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Arnold v. Arnold, 2051015,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, July 13, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because husband's testimony concerning a possible decrease in differential pay, which he had received for several years, was speculative, it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court not to have included the differential pay as income under Ala. R. Jud. Admin. 32 in determining the husband's child support obligation.
|
|||||
| Estelle v. Cunningham, 1051720,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, July 13, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment in favor of a landlord, as a new beneficiary under a deceased tenant's life insurance policies, was reversed, as the decedent's daughter, as a prior beneficiary under said policies, had a vested interest granting her standing to bring against the landlord alleging undue influence upon the decedent's death.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Tirey, 1061066,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, July 13, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a mother's claim that a sheriff failed to comply with the community-notification procedures in Ala. Code § 15-20-25 did not fall within any of the exceptions to the state immunity afforded sheriffs in Ala. Const. art. I, § 14, the sheriff was entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to dismiss the charge.
|
|||||
| Green Tree-AL, L.L.C. v. Reynolds, 1060595,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, July 13, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because: the debtor was the sole signatory of a promissory note between it and the lender, neither equitable estoppel or intertwining applied, and the debtor's grantees were not intended third-party beneficiaries of the loan agreement between the lender and the debtor, only the debtor was obligated to arbitrate the filed claims that involved him.
|
|||||
| Hornady Truck Lines, Inc. v. Howard, 2050948,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, July 13, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employer's misrepresentation defense was supported by substantial evidence as evidence showed that when beginning employment relationship, employer provided employee with written warning under Ala. Code § 25-5-51, employee misrepresented his physical condition in writing, and employee's condition was aggravated in course of employment.
|
|||||
| Horton v. Alexander, 1060445,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, July 13, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Phrase in Ala. Code § 8-9A-8(d), "or to another person as a consequence of debtor's making such transfer," referred to value given by good-faith transferee to any other person, without qualification or exception, as consequence of debtor's transfer. As this unambiguous language did not lead to absurd result, high court would not rewrite statute.
|
|||||
| Schreck v. Friedman, 2060336,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, July 13, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an action between the landowners and a beneficiary of a trust seeking removal of the beneficiary-created encroachments onto the landowners' property was a separate action based on new and different facts than those involved in a previous action involving the beneficiary's father, venue was proper where the property at issue was located.
|
|||||
| Stockton v. CKPD Dev. Co., LLC, 1060182,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, July 13, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Lessors claimed a lessee breached their right of refusal by selling an interest in the lease. As the intent of contracting parties (the lessee and its assignee) was dispositive of this claim, was a question of fact, and was the subject of disputed evidence, the trial court erred in granting the lessees summary judgment under Ala. R. Civ. P. 56.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
