 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| AmerUs Life Ins. Co. v. Smith, 1061535,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, September 19, 2008, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insurer was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law; insured did not present substantial evidence indicating that reliance on agent's representations was reasonable. No reasonable person could have read policies and cost-benefit statement and not be put on inquiry as to inconsistencies, thereby making reliance unreasonable as a matter of law.
|
|||||
| Bolden v. Wise Alloys, LLC, 2070084,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, September 19, 2008, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the trial court's judgment was rendered, but never input into the State Judicial Information System, it was never entered; accordingly, pursuant to Ala. R. Civ. P. 58(c) (2006), the judgment was a nonfinal judgment that would not support an appeal.
|
|||||
| Ex parte VFJ Ventures, Inc., 1070718,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, September 19, 2008, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Harris v. Health Care Auth., 1070271,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, September 19, 2008, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not abuse discretion by failing to amend scheduling order and by denying Ala. R. Civ. P. 56(f) motion; patient had not sought to modify the order and no case law supported claim that amendment of complaint to add new defendant required sua sponte modification of order for disclosure of expert witnesses.
|
|||||
| J.K. v. UMS-Wright Corp., 1060407,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, September 19, 2008, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: After alleged settlement between parents and school was approved, parents argued for first time, in their motion to vacate, that their attorney lacked express authority to settle case under Ala. Code § 34-3-21. At that point, court should have held hearing to determine whether attorney had such authority; it reversibly erred by failing to do so.
|
|||||
| Jordan v. Calloway, 1070354,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, September 19, 2008, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In tort action, any error in exclusion of medical records was harmless, as vehicle owner testified and was cross-examined on information contained in records and thus, records would have been cumulative. Passenger's mother was not entitled to new trial on wanton-entrustment claim as there was no evidence driver's medical condition caused accident.
|
|||||
| Kelly v. Panetta, 2061112,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, September 19, 2008, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Owners' E-mail to builders did not justify builders to stop work; E-mail was a request that builders cooperate in finalizing payments to subcontractors in a way that protected owners' interest by having subcontractors provide lien waivers. Builders' unjustified treatment of the E-mail repudiated the contract, and abandonment constituted a breach.
|
|||||
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. |
