 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Chandler v. City of Vestavia Hills Planning & Zoning Comm'n, 2050403,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, October 20, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Planning and zoning commission denied property owner's proposed subdivision because it would have created a "flag lot," which it deemed would violate the city's zoning regulations. Commission did not exceed the authority conferred on it by Ala. Code § 11-52-31, as it gave legitimate reasons for its decision and complied with all legal requirements.
|
|||||
| City of Birmingham v. George, 2050179,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, October 20, 2006
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly found that a city was subject to the Alabama Workers' Compensation Act, because an exemption from the Act under Ala. Code § 25-5-13(b) for cities which had a population of 250,000 or more did not apply, as the city's population was not frozen at a level over 250,000 by an amendment to the state constitution.
|
|||||
| Edwards Motors, Inc. v. Hudgins, 1051023,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, October 20, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's order denying arbitration was reversed because the purchasers' malicious prosecution action against the car dealership fell within the broad scope of the arbitration agreement signed by the purchasers as part of the financing agreement.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Caremark RX, Inc., 1040821, 1040908, 1040977,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, October 20, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court erred by failing to conduct the rigorous analysis required by Ala. Code § 6-5-641 with regard to class certification as, though the new action brought by the class related to previous securities litigation wherein the class was already certified, new defendants and claims were asserted that required a new analysis.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Dinkel, 1051067,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, October 20, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State supreme court granted the petition for writ of mandamus and issued writ directing trial court to enter a protective order allowing petitioner to postpone his deposition in civil action until criminal charges were resolved; without that order, his Fifth Amendment rights and ability to defend himself in civil proceeding would be jeopardized.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Terry, 1051404,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, October 20, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As an administrator failed to show a clear legal right to a stay in the probate court by filing a petition for removal under Ala. Code § 12-11-41, and because another remedy was available if the circuit court denied the petition for removal upon such being filed with the requisite statutory allegations, mandamus was denied.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Ward, 1050951,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, October 20, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner's request for a writ of mandamus was granted to the extent that the trial court had assessed a filing fee on a proceeding under Ala. R. Crim. P. 32 only after petitioner had filed a second Rule 32 proceeding. Ala. R. Crim. P. 32.6 and Ala. Code § 12-19-70 required imposition of the fee at the close of the first proceeding.
|
|||||
| Hooper v. Columbus Reg'l Healthcare Sys., 1031128,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, October 20, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the former employer on the doctor's breach of contract claim, as whether the former employer breached the employment agreement provision requiring it pay the standard rate for the doctor's professional insurance coverage presented a genuine issue of material fact about what was the "standard rate."
|
|||||
| Lawson v. Brian Homes, Inc., 2040619 through 2040625,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, October 20, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a group of lenders and purchasers of certain parcels of property were equitably subrogated to the first-priority position of the senior mortgage, the trial court did not err in entering summary judgment in their favor in a lienholder's action seeking a forced sale of said parcels in order to enforce her lien.
|
|||||
| Leopold v. Leopold, 2040611,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, October 20, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly deviated from child support guidelines of Ala. R. Jud. Admin. 32 as father's child support obligation would be $ 358.13 per month, yet subtracting $ 156.52 medical insurance premium that he paid for children's coverage, only $ 201.61 remained. Father's payment of health insurance premium was best use of disposable income.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
