 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Boyd v. Franklin, 1040701,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, July 8, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As a probate court's order requiring a decedent's widow to disgorge funds did not remove her as administratrix of the decedent's estate and did not finally settle the estate or a prior conservatorship, Ala. Code. ¿ 12-22-21(3), (5) did not confer jurisdiction on the circuit court to hear the widow's appeal from that order.
|
|||||
| D.M. v. Walker County Dep't of Human Res., 2040107, 2040108, 2040109,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, July 8, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The juvenile court properly considered the factors set forth in Ala. Code ¿ 26-18-7 and the applicable two-prong test in determining that plaintiff parents' children were dependent and that there were no viable alternatives to the termination of their parental rights. Numerous attempts at rehabilitation did not improve the parents' situation.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Howard, 1040431,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, July 8, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Premises owner was properly granted summary judgment in a personal injury action stemming from an injured child's erroneous choice to descend down a hillside on his bicycle, resulting in a fall into a hole, as child was an invitee, alternatives to descending the hill were available via a roadway, and the hole did not represent an unreasonable risk.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Unitrin, Inc., 1040834,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, July 8, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court improperly denied holding company's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction where affidavit showed that holding company did no business in Alabama and plaintiff failed to controvert that assertion. Among other things, issuance of licenses to the holding company's subsidiaries did not establish personal jurisdiction.
|
|||||
| L.L.M. v. S.F., 2040280,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, July 8, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a father met the best interest standard in gaining a transfer of custody and the mother placed the child in an environment that endangered her welfare, any error in the court's failure to apply the McLendon standard was harmless. However, because the father had control over the mother's visitation, that part of the judgment was reversed.
|
|||||
| McGowan v. State, CR-95-1775,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, July 8, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Decision to override jury's recommendation that defendant be sentenced to life imprisonment with possibility of parole and to sentence him to death was supported by evidence five jurors recommended death and by fact there was no conflicting evidence about who committed murders and victims' family did not ask for sentence of life without parole.
|
|||||
| Morgan Keegan & Co. v. Cunningham, 1031431,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, July 8, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an argument on rehearing, that a creditor's refusal to return money to movant litigants after repeated demands, standing alone, was sufficient to sustain a punitive damages award, was not made on original submission, it could not be considered for the first time on rehearing.
|
|||||
| Muller v. Seeds, 1040078,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, July 8, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Legal title to lot vested in mortgage holder by means of mortgage holder's foreclosure purchase of it, and he was entitled to possession. Mortgage did not provide that mortgage holder would grant release on payment of any consideration, and no other defense or evidence was presented justifying summary judgment for buyers on ejectment claim.
|
|||||
| Smith v. Smith, 2031122,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, July 8, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in extending time for husband to file notice of appeal based on claim that legal assistant of husband's counsel entered date of order in computer "calculator" program incorrectly because stamped date on the copy of order "appeared faded." Ala. R. Civ. P. 77(d) did not permit extension for miscalculation of filing deadline.
|
|||||
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. |
