 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Alexander v. Burch, 1041961,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, September 1, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: After an order on return to remand indicated that a circuit court had made no factual finding as to whether plaintiff's attorney in a personal injury action had the authority to accept a settlement on plaintiff's behalf, the state supreme court reversed and remanded for the appropriate factual finding to be made.
|
|||||
| Benefield v. Benefield, 2050159,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, September 1, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a judgment set aside a portion of the decedent's property as a homestead for the widow, the widow, pursuant to Title 7, § 697, Ala. Code 1940, acquired only a life estate in the homestead property. The widow's purported conveyance of the homestead in fee simple to defendant's father was ineffective.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Rawls, 1041495,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, September 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Husband's mandamus petition was granted and a stay of a divorce proceeding was ordered, because requiring testimony by the husband in the divorce would have violated the husband's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in relation to a charge of stalking brought against him by the wife.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Walley, 1040051,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, September 1, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because holding in favor of employee in her underlying employment discrimination and wrongful transfer suit would ultimately have resulted in reinstatement to her former position, relief she sought in trial court fell within exceptions to immunity granted by Ala. Const. art. I, § 14. Individual defendants were not entitled to mandamus relief.
|
|||||
| F.L. Crane & Sons, Inc. v. Malouf Constr. Corp., 1050206,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, September 1, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) provisions in a subcontract, not in the prime contract, governed in a third-party action between the subcontractor and the contractor because the prime contract bound different parties and the incorporation of the prime contract into the subcontract did not abolish the subcontract's ADR provisions.
|
|||||
| Kuykendall v. State, 2050402,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, September 1, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the son was stopped in the owner's truck and was found with methamphetamine, the owner established a defense of lack of knowledge or consent under Ala. Code § 20-2-93(h) to the forfeiture. Knowledge of the son's early 1990s drug conviction, alone, was not enough to establish that the owner had knowledge of the son's recent drug use.
|
|||||
| Town of Pike Rd. v. City of Montgomery, 1050151,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, September 1, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since town was challenging annexation in trial court, including the validity of the annexation, appeal of the case to the state supreme court was premature because appeal outcome depended upon issues trial court had to determine; thus, city's application for rehearing was granted and order was entered that stayed appeal until trial court ruled.
|
|||||
| Weekley v. Weekley, 2050096,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, September 1, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ala. R. Civ. P. 58(b) required that a judgment or order be signed or initialed by the trial judge. Entries on trial court's case-action-summary sheet which stated that a husband's motion to modify was denied and that his postjudgment motion was denied, but which were not signed or initialed by trial judge, did not meet requirements of judgments.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
