 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Crown Castle USA, Inc. v. Howell Eng'g & Surveying, Inc., 2040076, 2031147,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 19, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a noncompetition provision in a services agreement between a lessee and its engineer was void under Ala. Code ¿ 8-1-1, the lessee was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law on the engineer's breach-of-contract claim. But, absent support of its claims of error on appeal, a garnishment order against the lessee was affirmed.
|
|||||
| Dennis v. Northcutt, 1040503,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, August 19, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a client's underlying action was an employment-discrimination action and not a malpractice action against his first lawyers, and the client did not establish that he would have recovered in either action, the trial court properly granted summary judgment to the second attorney, even if it did so before the alleged discovery cut-off date.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Children's Hosp., 1040122,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, August 19, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the injures alleged to have been caused by the alleged perpetrator of the decedent baby's death occurred in Bessemer at a hospital in Birmingham, the cause of action did not arise within the Bessemer Division. Hence, venue was proper in the Birmingham Division, supporting the issuance of mandamus relief granting a request for a transfer.
|
|||||
| Gunnison-Mack v. Ala. State Pers. Bd. , 2031113,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 19, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee's untimely postjudgment motion did not toll the 42-day time period for filing a notice of appeal. Thus, when the employee filed her notice of appeal after that period passed, the appeals court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over said appeal, requiring that said appeal be dismissed.
|
|||||
| Hedegard v. BE&K, 2040015,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 19, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an employee failed to file his age discrimination action against his employer within 90 days after he received his right-to-sue letter from the EEOC in order to comply with the limitations period under the Alabama Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Ala. Code ¿ 25-1-20 et seq., summary judgment was properly entered against him.
|
|||||
| Jones-Williams Constr. Co. v. Town & Country Prop., L.L.C., 2040451,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 19, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly held that corporation waived its right to arbitrate under 9 U.S.C.S. ¿¿2 as corporation filed discovery requests, moved to compel limited liability companies' (LLCs) response to its discovery requests, and waited more than one-and-one-half years to file motion to arbitrate after informing LLCs that it was considering doing so.
|
|||||
| State Dep't of Indus. Rels. v. Barber, 2031177,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 19, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because closing his business was a sole shareholder's only recourse before the State Department of Revenue closed it, the shareholder left his employment for good cause and was entitled to unemployment-compensation benefits under Ala. Code ¿ 25-4-78(2).
|
|||||
| State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Williams, 1030665,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, August 19, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the only evidence presented by the insureds as to the damages element of their breach of contract claim amounted to inadmissible hearsay and was presented after the trial court allowed them to reopen their case-in-chief and after the insurer moved for a pre-verdict JML, the trial court erred in denying the insurer relief as to said claim.
|
|||||
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. |
