 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Hannah v. Gregg, Bland & Berry, 1002094, 1002095,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, September 6, 2002, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Reconsideration of opinion reversing trial court's grant of summary judgment to first corporation in widow's lawsuit was denied where first corporation failed to include in the record on appeal a copy of contract on which it relied for its argument.
|
|||||
| Harper v. Brown, Stagner, Richardson, 1011109, 1011205,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, September 6, 2002, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in allowing corporation leave to amend its complaint to add an individual as a defendant and to assert new claims against him after a suit against the individual's company had been concluded.
|
|||||
| Healy v. Medlock, 2010251,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, September 6, 2002, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case arising from a car accident, there was no indication that plaintiffs' failure to substitute the proper party was due to excusable neglect. They had nearly a year to substitute a proper party for the deceased defendant and failed to do so.
|
|||||
| J.L. v. A.Y., 2010105,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, September 6, 2002, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in its calculation of child support. The trial court's calculations were based on the guidelines, and the failure to conduct a hearing on the father's motion was not prejudicial error. The forms did not require a signature.
|
|||||
| Jones v. Hooks, 1010948,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, September 6, 2002, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no constitutional or statutory provision authorizing the governor to grant a commutation of a sentence of life without parole to a sentence of life with the possibility of parole.
|
|||||
| Killough v. Flowers, 2010696,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, September 6, 2002, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in finding that ex-wife was not her decedent ex-husband's surviving spouse, and, thus, that she could not dissent from his will and seek to be awarded an elective share.
|
|||||
| McCammon v. Youngblood, 2010193,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, September 6, 2002, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of tort claims and ¿ 1983 action against prisoner's parole officer was reversed, where the complaint set forth claims upon which there was a possibility that the prisoner could prevail.
|
|||||
| Moore v. Prudential Residential Servs. P'Ship, 1010767,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, September 6, 2002, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Listing agent did not have a duty to disclose defects in used real property sold under "as is" clause for purposes of fraudulent misrepresentation claim. Further, purchasers failed to show that the listing agent knew of defects.
|
|||||
| Neal v. Neal, 1991439, 1992202,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, September 6, 2002, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgments against a son attempting to void a settlement agreement resolving his disputes with his adoptive brothers, who were adopted as adults while the Adult Adoption Act was in effect, over his father's estate were affirmed.
|
|||||
| Potter v. First Real Estate Co., 1010339,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, September 6, 2002, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence showing that a single clear and unambiguous document was submitted to a literate person at the time of a real estate closing did not trigger the running of the statute of limitations for fraud, because of events that preceded the closing.
|
|||||
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. |
