 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Harris v. Mitchell, 2050073,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 18, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court correctly ruled that paternity action against putative father was not barred by doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel; the child was neither a party to nor represented in a prior action to determine paternity and, thus, the child was entitled to assert a paternity claim against him pursuant to Ala. Code § 26-17-1 et seq.
|
|||||
| Jett v. State, CR-05-1749,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 18, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's new trial motion was not properly filed, as that term was used in Ala. R. Crim. P. 24.1, when he deposited said motion with the circuit court without filing it with the circuit clerk. Thus, as his notice of appeal was thereafter untimely filed, said appeal was dismissed, and his only remedy, if any, was under Ala. R. Crim. P. 32.1(f).
|
|||||
| Nix v. McElrath, 1040259,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, August 18, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a wrongful death action brought by the mother, the father was entitled to one-half of the damages because Ala. Code § 6-5-391(c) required damages to be disbursed in a manner directed by the statute governing intestate succession. As child had no surviving spouse or issue, the damages should have been awarded to the mother and the father equally.
|
|||||
| S.N.S.D. v. M.D.K., 2050305,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 18, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An order by a juvenile court in dependency proceedings that a mother's minor child would not be returned to her was reversed because the juvenile court did not advise the mother, as required by Ala. Code §§ 12-15-63(b), 12-15-65(b), that she had the right to be represented by counsel and that counsel would be appointed if she could not afford one.
|
|||||
| Samford Univ. v. City of Homewood, 1050444,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, August 18, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a city, as condemnor, did not take possession of the condemned land before the circuit court entered its final judgment, and no evidence existed that the city paid a bond double the amount of assessed damages in order to effect right of entry onto the land, the landowner was properly denied prejudgment interest on the condemnation award.
|
|||||
| Sloan Southern Homes, LLC v. McQueen, 1041893, 1041906, 1050068,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, August 18, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As the punitive damages limitation of an arbitration clause was unenforceable under Alabama law, but the parties agreed to proceed to arbitration without said clause, the illegal clause was extracted. Thus, the trial court erred in denying a motion to compel the same.
|
|||||
| State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Chestang, 1040361, 1040363,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, August 18, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an insurer presented evidence that its insured expected or intended to injure the decedent, specifically, the insured's own testimony, a genuine issue of material fact existed as to the application of an expected or intended exclusion in the insured's homeowner's policy, precluding summary judgment against the insurer.
|
|||||
| State v. Herring, CR-05-1201,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 18, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Stokes v. Ferguson, 1031956,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, August 18, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was improper because it was based on motion which consisted only of memorandum summary of facts unsupported by evidence in record and legal argument. Motion failed to comply with Ala. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1), which required that narrative summary be supported by specific references to pleadings, discovery materials, or affidavits.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
