 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| A.M. v. Lamar County Dep't of Human Res., 2010564,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, October 4, 2002, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Termination of parental rights order was upheld, where despite 10 years of intervention by the department of human resources, the children remained dependent and the parents were unable or unwilling to change their condition to care for them.
|
|||||
| AmSouth Bank v. Dees, 1010361,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, October 4, 2002, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Credit agreement between customers and bank substantially involved interstate commerce, making arbitration clause in agreement enforceable under Federal Arbitration Act. Wife, who did not sign credit-line agreement, was a third party beneficiary.
|
|||||
| Bruno'S, Inc. v. Killingsworth, 2010281,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, October 4, 2002, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence showed an injury was work-related resulting in permanent total disability. The trial court properly calculated the attorney fees without first deducting the amount of the disability plan provided by the employer.
|
|||||
| Davis v. Russell, 2010179,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, October 4, 2002, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because notice relieving the coach was sent after school year's end, he was not fired. He was properly assigned other coaching duties, which he refused to accept. He, in effect, resigned. His duties were properly ended and his supplement withheld.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Summit Med. Ctr. of Montgomery, Inc., CR-01-2300,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, October 4, 2002, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Whether petition for writ of mandamus should be granted could not be decided until the trial court addressed the validity of the alleged thief's subpoena duces tecum in light of the four Nixon factors and made specific findings regarding them.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Toney, 1010696,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, October 4, 2002, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Probation officer's testimony that he was present when people representing out-of-state car dealership identified defendant as person who purchased car was not sufficient by itself to prove defendant violated probation by traveling outside the state.
|
|||||
| Foley v. Foley, 2010311,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, October 4, 2002, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court abused discretion in its property division and award of periodic alimony to wife, as husband accumulated substantial pension, but wife had not worked outside home, had no prospects of employment, and had no pension plan of her own.
|
|||||
| GMC v. Stokes, 1010773,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, October 4, 2002, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State supreme court interpreted clause that required arbitration of all claims "arising under or relating to" relocation of vehicles from one automobile dealer to another broadly, and held that dispute about terms of sale was subject to arbitration.
|
|||||
| Gary Powers Dev. v. State Home Builders Licensure Bd., 2010598,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, October 4, 2002, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State licensure board's determination requiring homebuilder to surrender its license was still enforceable and such was not affected by post-judgment motions. Thus, an appeal filed outside of the statutory time was dismissed.
|
|||||
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. |
