 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Burlington Ins. Co. v. Fluid Servs., 2070185,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, September 12, 2008, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A door-closing statute, Ala. Code § 10-2B-15.02(a), constitutionally barred a foreign insurer's breach of contract suit against a commercial insured because, under the McCarran Ferguson Act, the State was permitted to preclude insurers lacking certificates of authority from enforcing policies in Alabama courts without offending the Commerce Clause.
|
|||||
| C.T. v. Calhoun County Dep't of Human Res., 2070588,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, September 12, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Mother's parental rights were properly terminated, as department of human resources presented evidence of its recent attempts to locate relative placements for child, it could not have investigated a relative mother had never mentioned, and there was no direct evidence this relative was willing to take the child or was a suitable placement.
|
|||||
| Corwin v. Corwin, 2070259,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, September 12, 2008, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment denying contempt petition was reversed as a mother was not required to take any steps, in the probate court or otherwise, to "preserve" the child-support arrearage. Although under Ala. Code § 26-10A-29(b), the adoption relieved the father of any further duty to support the child, it did not affect the accrued child-support arrearage.
|
|||||
| Crosslin v. Health Care Auth. of Huntsville, 1051537,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, September 12, 2008, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| D & E Invs., L.L.C. v. Singleton, 2051014,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, September 12, 2008, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Ex parte Burr & Forman, 1060801,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, September 12, 2008, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Ex parte Ferguson, 2070577,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, September 12, 2008, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petition for writ of mandamus was denied as husband did not change his domicile from Alabama to China for purposes of Ala. Code § 30-2-5 as he owned property in Alabama, and claimed parties' Alabama house as permanent residence on all official documents and on his federal and state income-tax returns.
|
|||||
| Franklin v. Etheridge, 2060962,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, September 12, 2008, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was reversed as trial court relied on expert testimony that was based on facts not in evidence, including assumptions that all monthly payments had been made through August 1995, and that no payments had been made from September 1995 until October 3, 1997.
|
|||||
| Gullett v. Gullett, 2070007,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, September 12, 2008, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court lost jurisdiction to rule on husband's Ala. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion that was filed past time allowed by Ala. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). Even if treated as an Ala. R. Civ. P. 77(d) motion, trial court lost jurisdiction 73 days after entry of its judgment; Rule 4 allowed 42 days to appeal, Ala. R. Civ. P. 59 allowed 30 days, and 72nd day was Sunday.
|
|||||
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. |
