 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Huntsville Utils. v. Consol. Constr. Co., 1020195,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, September 5, 2003, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Arbitration clause was enforceable under the FAA when the utilities purchased the material to be used by the contractor in the renovation project from sellers in 20 different states since such conduct unquestionably affected interstate commerce.
|
|||||
| Jones v. Alfa Mut. Ins. Co., 1010565,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, September 5, 2003, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court improperly dismissed the insureds' bad faith claim against an insurer as barred by the statute of limitations, where the date that the insureds' claim for bad faith accrued could not be determined from the complaint.
|
|||||
| M.E.T. v. M.F., 2020701,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, September 5, 2003, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where there was no equal protection under the state constitution, an alleged father did not discuss federal equal protection, and a paternity statute did not violate due process; the alleged father's paternity petition was properly denied.
|
|||||
| Moore v. John Hancock Life Ins. Co., 1020405,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, September 5, 2003, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was properly entered in favor of an insurer, and against the grantor of a trust and his children, where the grantor conceded that he lacked standing to bring the underlying suit, and the children could not claim beneficiary status.
|
|||||
| Preussel v. Preussel, 2020069,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, September 5, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly held father in contempt of his child support obligation, and ordered that he pay an arrearage and post-minority support. However, when the order failed to require the son maintain full-time school status, the case was remanded.
|
|||||
| Shades Mt. Plaza, L.L.C. v. City of Hoover, 2010891,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, September 5, 2003, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State statute did not mandate that only one kind of governmental entity review conditionally permitted land uses; board of zoning adjustment could review requests for special exceptions, while a planning commission could review conditional uses.
|
|||||
| Smith v. Smith, 2020197,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, September 5, 2003, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a wife and husband owned certain property as joint tenants, a property agreement did not operate to disclaim the wife's interest in the property, and because the agreement was unambiguous, the trial court erred in considering parol evidence.
|
|||||
| SouthTrust Bank v. Copeland One, L.L.C., 1020727,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, September 5, 2003, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ambiguity in ATM lease was construed against the lessee, who drafted the lease, and was interpreted to mean that the lessee had the right to operate either the ATM or the banking facility during the term of the ATM lease, but not both.
|
|||||
| Watts v. Sentry Ins., 1020995,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, September 5, 2003, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even though a worker received workers' compensation benefits for injuries sustained in a motor-vehicle accident, the worker could recover underinsured-motorist benefits from the employer's automobile liability insurer.
|
|||||
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. |
