 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Atl. Nat'l Trust, LLC v. McNamee, 1060423,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, October 5, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: That assignee never had possession of note that was misplaced, lost, or destroyed by assignor before the assignment occurred did not prevent assignee from enforcing note under Ala. Code ¿ 7-3-309 because, under common law relating to assignments, if assignor had been entitled to enforce note, assignee stepped into its shoes.
|
|||||
| B.B. v. F.P., 2060624,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, October 5, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Remand was required when the court could not determine whether a postminority educational child support award imposed an undue hardship upon the child's mother. There was insufficient legal evidence as to the costs of the child's college books and fees, as to a student loan, and as to the child's other non-tuition college expenses.
|
|||||
| Daniels v. Daniels, 2060348,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, October 5, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because no abuse of discretion resulted from an order denying a husband's motion to continue the final hearing in a divorce proceeding, he failed to present evidence regarding the status of his mental health, and his evidence of past employment during the marriage supported a finding of his voluntary underemployment, said judgment was affirmed.
|
|||||
| Dunlap v. Regions Fin. Corp., 1060384,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, October 5, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Former employee whose age discrimination suit was dismissed presented no authority or argument supporting the conclusion that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to award her employer attorney fees after she filed a notice of appeal; thus, the high court would not consider this contention due to her failure to comply with Ala. R. App. P. 28(a).
|
|||||
| ERA Class.com v. Stoddard, 2060144,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, October 5, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Home buyers' claims for negligence, wantonness, fraud, and suppression against a real estate agent who had stated that property was zoned commercial when it was zoned residential were barred. Caveat emptor applied because the property was used real estate; moreover, the buyers had signed a purchase agreement containing an "as is" clause.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Beck, 1060593,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, October 5, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate, after unsuccessfully challenging his parole revocation in federal courts, sued an investigator and police chief in state court. That court erred in dismissing the suit based on doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel, as these were affirmative defenses under Ala. R. Civ. P. 8(c) and had not been raised by investigator and chief.
|
|||||
| Ex parte K.N.F.G., 1061651,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, October 5, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Ex parte Lawson, 1060664,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, October 5, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Ex parte Patel, 1060897,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, October 5, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Award of summary judgment to business parties in a financial consultant's breach of contract action was improper under Ala. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3) because a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether there was a valid contract between the consultant and the business parties.
|
|||||
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. |
