 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Byrd v. Bentley, 1010528,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, August 23, 2002, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Damage award to employee on breach of contract claim was upheld. Underlying agreement was not a sale of securities, employee's performance avoided the statute of frauds, and recorded duplicate tape was not subject to the best evidence rule.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Avery, 1011764,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, August 23, 2002, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Circuit judge had no authority to direct probate judge to turn over election materials to the circuit clerk. Where criminal investigation of alleged voter fraud was initiated, district attorney had a right to the same. Mandamus was thus ordered.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Hails, CR-01-2135,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 23, 2002, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court erred in denying defendant a bail hearing; the trial court denied defendant, who was charged with capital murder, the opportunity to offer proof necessary to overcome a presumption of guilt in order to be entitled to bail.
|
|||||
| Judd v. Sandefer, 2010491,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 23, 2002, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As defendant prevailing party was not the plaintiff-offeree who obtained a judgment in his favor, he was not entitled to the payment of expenses in defendant the action. Furthermore, an exception would not better serve the purposes of the rule.
|
|||||
| Runyans v. Littrell, 1010803,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, August 23, 2002, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As the homeowners did not provide alcohol at a party in which a minor was injured, they could not be held liable under Alabama's Dram Shop Act, or by way of the Open House Party statute.
|
|||||
| Thompson v. Case, 2000357,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 23, 2002, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Time limit in probate statute meant only that persons failing to apply for letters relinquished their priority to administer estate. Nothing in statute prevented an interested party from seeking removal of an administratrix for waste and fraud.
|
|||||
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. |
