 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Beiersdoerfer v. Hilb, Rogal & Hamilton Co., 1012243 and 1012304,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, September 22, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Ala. R. Civ. P. 59 and Ala. Code § 12-13-11(a)(8), the trial court exceeded its discretion in ordering a new trial in favor of the purchasers and agency on grounds of inconsistent verdicts in the absence of timely objection to the jury charges as given.
|
|||||
| Blackmon v. Nexity Fin. Corp., 1041796,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, September 22, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Disallowing investor's amended complaint was not error, as trial court could disallow it, despite timely filing, in its discretion and under Ala. R. Civ. P. 15(a), in the interests of justice, to prevent undue delay; too, its granting of summary judgment against investor was not error, as alleged misrepresentations and omissions were not material.
|
|||||
| Kelley v. Kelley, 2040581, 2040586,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, September 22, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Due to the trial court's failure to order that a food company and the other shareholders be accorded their right to purchase the shares awarded to the wife, the entire divorce judgment had to be reversed. But, as the husband adequately represented the interests of the company and the other shareholders, the latter were properly denied intervention.
|
|||||
| Rabb v. Estate of Harris, 1041650,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, September 22, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a guardian ad litem refused to substantiate his request for an attorney fee with any evidence or documentation to support the same, such as itemized billing records, the probate court did not exceed its discretion in relying on its own expertise and judgment to award him a lesser amount.
|
|||||
| Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, 2050114,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, September 22, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As a wife's notice of appeal was filed more than 42 days after the entry of an amended judgment granting her postjudgment motion in part, the notice of appeal was untimely as a matter of law, and her appeal was dismissed based upon the absence of appellate jurisdiction.
|
|||||
| Vista Land & Equip., L.L.C. v. Computer Programs & Sys., 1050642,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, September 22, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As Texas LLC that purchased a computer system from an Alabama-based corporation was involved in an ongoing business transaction with the corporation, and made payments and numerous phone calls to the corporation in Alabama, its contacts with Alabama gave that state personal jurisdiction over the LLC under Ala. R. Civ. P. 4.2.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
