 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| AT&T Corp. v. Surtees, 2040908,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, September 8, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Business privilege tax and corporate shares tax statutes imposed heavier tax burden if entity in which taxpaying corporation had invested did not do business in Alabama, were thus facially discriminatory against interstate commerce, and were "virtually per se invalid." Department had burden of showing their validity under the Commerce Clause.
|
|||||
| Boutwell v. State, 1050299,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, September 8, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ala. Code ¿ 18-1A-283, construed with Ala. Code ¿ 18-1A-282, showed time for appeal from order of condemnation was measured "from the date of" the order of condemnation, and not from the date the order was recorded in the probate court; thus, claimant's appeal filed one day beyond time limit allowed as measured that way was properly dismissed.
|
|||||
| Bradley Outdoor, Inc. v. Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 2040915, 2040916,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, September 8, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: 1971 Ala. Acts 2135, which granted a city the power to zone in an area outside its corporate limits, was constitutional. Because a corporation could and did appeal the denial of a billboard permit the corporation sought from the city, and even though that appeal was untimely, mandamus did not lie to compel the city to grant that permit.
|
|||||
| HICA Educ. Loan Corp. v. Fielding, 2050504,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, September 8, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the record on appeal failed to justify the trial court's dismissal of a loan servicer's action against one of its debtors following his default, and the court's subsequent refusal to set aside that dismissal on the ground that the loan servicer's local counsel had not filed a formal notice of appearance, said dismissal was reversed.
|
|||||
| Presley Roofing & Constr. Co. v. Lewis, 2050330,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, September 8, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly denied a contractor mandamus relief, directing a city to reissue a previously revoked business license, as the contractor failed in its burden to show that it had a clear legal right to said license, and the city's failure to cite to an ordinance to support revocation did not relieve the contractor of this burden.
|
|||||
| Shaw v. State ex rel. Hayes, 2050072, 2050103,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, September 8, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a forfeiture action, after setting the motion for hearing, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the State without holding a hearing three business days before the scheduled trial date. As a result, an insurer's appeal from the trial court's ruling was rendered moot.
|
|||||
| Sheeley v. Chapman, 2040960, 2040965,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, September 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While the trial court's order of postminority support for the parties' daughter was proper, Ala. Code ¿ 30-3-60 authorized income-withholding orders only for the collection of child support while the child was a minor. The trial court erred in ordering an income-withholding order for collection of a postminority support award.
|
|||||
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. |
