 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ex parte Hoyt, 2060858,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, October 12, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petition for mandamus writ in workers' compensation case was dismissed as untimely because it was filed outside of presumptively reasonable 42-day period, which was period in which an appeal may have been taken. Also, employee did not include statement of circumstances constituting good cause to consider petition under Ala. R. App. P. 21(a)(3).
|
|||||
| Ex parte Wilbanks Health Care Servs., 1060218,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, October 12, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alabama Medicaid Agency erred in ruling nursing facility's software maintenance fees were not reimbursable operating expense. In determining what was reimbursable, it had to rely on Medicare regulation, 42 C.F.R. § 413.130(b)(7), pursuant to which, as software agreement treated subject of maintenance, such fees were reimbursable as operating costs.
|
|||||
| Faulk v. Berry, 2060631,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, October 12, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment appealed from, which transferred custody of the parties' child to the father, was a nonfinal judgment, and the appeal was dismissed, the because the judgment did not dispose of the pending issues of child support, who would claim the child as a dependent for income-tax purposes, or whether the father should have been held in contempt.
|
|||||
| J.C. v. State Dep't of Human Res., 2060091,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, October 12, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a determination that a mother's child was dependent and that there were not viable alternatives for placement was supported by clear and convincing evidence, a judgment terminating the mother's parental rights to the child was affirmed. Evidence regarding the family's history showed several of the factors listed in Ala. Code § 26-18-7.
|
|||||
| Norman v. Norman, 2060587,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, October 12, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Mother's appeal from a non-final order granting the father a stay was dismissed, as the appeals court lacked jurisdiction over appeals from non-final orders. Further, because a mother filed her notice of appeal outside the presumptively reasonable 42-day period under Ala. R. App. P. 21(a), the court could not treat such as a petition for mandamus.
|
|||||
| Rhone v. Adams, 1060482,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, October 12, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As a church and a school were not named as beneficiaries of a charitable trust, but were merely potential beneficiaries, they did not have a sufficient special interest in the enforcement of the trust to entitle them to bring a suit against the trustees for alleged misdeeds and mismanagement.
|
|||||
| Rogers v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 1051458,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, October 12, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where insurer and insured did not agree that damage to brick veneer or to foundation of insureds' home was caused by tornado and hence was covered by policy, trial court erred in ordering them to submit to the appraisal process, as the determination of causation was within the exclusive purview of the courts, not the appraisers.
|
|||||
| Sparks v. Ala. State Bd. of Chiropractic Exam'rs, 2060864,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, October 12, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As advertising rules of Alabama State Board of Chiropractic Examiners threatened to interfere with chiropractors' rights and privileges, they had standing to challenge constitutionality of those rules in an action seeking injunctive and declaratory relief under Ala. Code § 41-22-10, and Board was not immune from suit under Ala. Const. art. I, § 14.
|
|||||
| State v. Andrews, 1061490,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, October 12, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
