 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ex parte Fitkin, 1990810,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, July 21, 2000, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove defendant constructively possessed marijuana; joint found in truck which defendant had borrowed, and defendant exhibited no behavior indicating he knew of, or intended to possess marijuana.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Hampton, 1990577,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, July 21, 2000, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant's conviction was reversed because the original indictment against appellant was fatally defective because it did not allege that appellant knowingly violated the sex offender registration statute, as required by the statute.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Lyon Fin. Servs., 1990658,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, July 21, 2000, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pendency of respondent's unliquidated and unproven claim against the third party was not a valid ground for staying execution of the domesticated Minnesota judgment. Thus, the court granted the petition for writ of mandamus.
|
|||||
| Ford v. Jefferson County, 2990574,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, July 21, 2000, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in granting summary judgment to defendants on plaintiffs' federal civil rights claims, because the state notice-of-claim statutes conflicted with the federal civil rights statute's remedial objectives.
|
|||||
| Frank Crain Auctioneers, Inc. v. Delchamps, 2990307,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, July 21, 2000, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Realtor who bought property at real estate auction not entitled to commission from auctioneer as broker failed to accept auctioneer's offer to register prospective buyers prior to auction. Fraud claim failed as no misrepresentation.
|
|||||
| Radford v. State, 1990342,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, July 21, 2000, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In civil forfeiture action, order to forfeit automobile to state improperly reversed where respondent did not preserve issue of error in admitting evidence regarding State's requirement to prove chain of custody concerning drug evidence.
|
|||||
| SouthTrust Bank v. Williams, 1980706,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, July 21, 2000, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Checking accounts kept open after the addition of an arbitration provision to a bank's regulations amounted to assent to the provision, and federal law prohibited subjecting the provision to special scrutiny and denying arbitration.
|
|||||
| Southern United Fire Ins. Co. v. Howard, 1990482,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, July 21, 2000, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Arbitration clause in automobile insurance contract was enforced against plaintiff, where he accepted the insurance contract by paying the premiums and renewing the policy, and did not object to the arbitration provision.
|
|||||
| Southern United Fire Ins. Co. v. Pierce, 1990443,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, July 21, 2000, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in denying defendant insurance company's motion to compel arbitration, because defendant presented sufficient evidence to support its assertion that the individual transaction in question affected interstate commerce.
|
|||||
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. |
