 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ala. Dep't of Envtl. Mgmt. v. Ass'n of Reg'l Councils, 2040978,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, July 28, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a suit filed by the Association of Regional Councils based on problems faced in performing its statutory duties to issue statements of consistency to parties seeking approval of proposed solid-waste-disposal sites failed to state a justiciable controversy, a moratorium granted as to the performance of said duties was vacated.
|
|||||
| Ala. Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Bailey's Constr. Co., 1050433,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, July 28, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment in favor of a construction company was upheld in a contribution action where the plaintiffs failed to present substantial evidence that it reasonable relied on certificates of insurance sent by the construction company since the construction company had no contractual duty to name the plaintiffs as an additional insured.
|
|||||
| Amerisource Corp. v. CRSX, Inc., 1030615,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, July 28, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a suit arising from defaulted promissory notes, because neither party objected to the special master's report or to the failure to cover the substance of the report at a hearing, pursuant to Ala. R. Civ. P. 53(e)(2), the trial court did not violate the parties' due-process rights when it took the report into consideration in issuing its ruling.
|
|||||
| Bd. of Water & Sewer Comm'rs v. Hunter, 1050067,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, July 28, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ala. Code § 34-11-1(7), which required a witness testifying on engineering matters to be licensed in Alabama, was not unconstitutional because 1997 Ala. Acts 97-683, which added this requirement, did not violate the single subject rule in Ala. Const. art. IV, § 45, the statute was not vague, and it did not violate equal protection or due process.
|
|||||
| Bishop v. Knight, 2050302,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, July 28, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A judgment awarding custody of an older son to his father was reversed as the older son did not suffer physical abuse due to his mother's paddlings since the older son had received less than 10 paddlings during his life and they were administered after a waiting period to ensure that they were not being administered out of anger.
|
|||||
| Cadle Co. v. Shabani, 1050039, 1050098, 1050120,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, July 28, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Ala. Code § 6-6-280, to maintain ejectment action, plaintiff must allege either possession or legal title, and action must be brought in name of owner of land or name of person entitled to possession. Assignee of judgment lacked standing to bring ejectment action relating to property which was purchased by its assignor at sheriff's sale.
|
|||||
| City of Bessemer v. McClain, 1031917,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, July 28, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Municipal ordinances requiring wholesalers to collect and pay taxes on tobacco sales were invalid because 1947 Ala. Acts 414 prohibited municipalities from collecting such taxes whether or not stamps were used, and cy pres was properly applied to distribute funds collected under the ordinances because a beneficiary class was difficult to ascertain.
|
|||||
| Deramus Hearing Aid Ctr., Inc. v. Am. Hearing Aid Assocs., 1050552,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, July 28, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Nothing indicated that trial court, after entering summary judgment for defendant, re-weighed evidence and decided to change its mind and render a "different" judgment for plaintiff. Pursuant to Ala. R. Civ. P. 60(a), trial court had right to vacate wrong order and to enter a corrected order for the purpose of making the record speak the truth.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Stephens, 1041861,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, July 28, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's death sentence was reversed as the jury was improperly instructed that it was required to consider as an aggravating factor that defendant caused two deaths by a single act as the two-deaths factor was not listed in Ala. Code § 13A-5-49 at the time of the offense. The error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
|
|||||
| Hollis v. City of Brighton, 1040073,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, July 28, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an officer was exercising judgment in the discharge of his law-enforcement duties when he ordered plaintiff not to reenter his burning house, officer was immune from civil liability under Ala. Code § 6-5-338(a) and the modified Ex parte Cranman test. Therefore, the city that employed the officer was not vicariously liable for his actions.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
