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!
   State Courts - Alabama - October 20, 2006
  
State v. Isbell, CR-05-2011, COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, October 20, 2006, Released
View this case - free  

Overview: District attorney's mandamus petition challenging a discovery order in an underlying case was transferred to the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals, as the only matter at issue was whether defendant or the State would bear the cost and responsibility of collecting and copying data, so the appellate court lacked jurisdiction under Ala. Code ? 12-3-9.

Search Cases for Free
  
Whitehurst v. Baker, 1050871, 1050964, SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, October 20, 2006, Released
View this case - free  

Overview: Because the plain meaning of Ala. Code ? 43-8-196 did not permit the estate to be charged with attorney fees and costs incurred by an unsuccessful contestant, the trial court erred as a matter of law in taxing a guardian ad litem's fee and costs against the estate.

Search Cases for Free
  
Whitlock v. Richardson, 2040849, COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, October 20, 2006, Released
View this case - free  

Search Cases for Free
  
Wilbanks Health Care Servs. v. Ala. Medicaid Agency, 2050132, COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, October 20, 2006, Released
View this case - free  

Overview: Decision by the Alabama Medicaid Agency to deny reimbursement by the nursing home for fees that were part of a software purchase agreement was upheld because it was reasonable to interpret the fee as a capital expenditure that was not subject to reimbursement based upon its guidelines, the agreement, and Agency's interpretation of "maintenance."

Search Cases for Free
  
Williams v. Fox TV Stations of Birmingham, Inc., 2050205, COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, October 20, 2006, Released
View this case - free  

Overview: Appeal in a defamation action filed by an inmate needed to be dismissed as untimely because the inmate's postjudgment motion with the trial court under Ala. R. Civ. P. 59(b) was not timely and did not toll the 42-day period set forth in Ala. R. App. P. 4(a). Appeal filed more than 42 days after entry of final judgment was not timely.

Search Cases for Free
  
Back to Top
  


Copyright© 2011 LexisNexis®, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.