 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Boschert Merrifield Consultants, Inc. v. Masonite Corp., 1031061,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, September 24, 2004, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As a claims service was never a defendant, a representative, a member of the plaintiff class, or an intervenor, its notice of appeal failed to invoke the appellate jurisdiction of the state supreme court and its appeal was dismissed.
|
|||||
| Bowater Inc. v. Zager, 1030202,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, September 24, 2004, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appeal of arbitration order was timely where it was filed within 42 days of a motion to alter or amend the order. Trial court erred when it failed to enforce the requirements set out in an arbitration clause for arbitrators of a lease dispute.
|
|||||
| Braden v. Jim Bishop Chevrolet, Inc., 1021829,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, September 24, 2004, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court properly denied a dealer's motion for a stay of civil proceedings with regard to the dealer asserting his right against self-incrimination where no criminal investigation or proceedings had ever commenced.
|
|||||
| Ex parte State Dep't of Human Res., 2030570,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, September 24, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State officers did not have sovereign immunity to a suit filed by a former director of a county department of human resources, which alleged that the officers acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and in a discriminatory manner in transferring her.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Sysco Food Servs. of Jackson, LLC, 1031409,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, September 24, 2004, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an employer had an adequate remedy at law, specifically an appeal of the trial court's order in limine against it in a retaliatory discharge action, it was not entitled to mandamus relief seeking vacation of said order.
|
|||||
| Haar v. Glover, 2030193,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, September 24, 2004, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Despite an unambiguous commercial lease, the damages and attorney's fee awarded to a landlord in his suit against the tenant for rent owed were reversed due to an error in mathematical calculations.
|
|||||
| Johnston-Tombigbee Furniture Mfg. Co. v. Berry, 2030045,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, September 24, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Corporation's amended complaint did not relate back to filing of original complaint as corporation changed its allegation as to parties' intent in titling tract of land from titling tract in corporation's name to titling it in two brothers' names.
|
|||||
| McCraney v. McCraney, 2030124,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, September 24, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in denying father's petition to modify custody even though two doctors advised the parents that the child needed a medication that mother was not giving him. Two doctors told mother that the child did not need the medication.
|
|||||
| Parker v. Parker, 2030014,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, September 24, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appeals court dismissed husband's appeal of divorce order; notice of appeal 42-day time period started when husband's postjudgment motion for new trial was denied and not on later date when his motion to reconsider that denial was denied.
|
|||||
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. |
