 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Brown ex rel. Brown v. St. Vincent's Hosp., 1021988,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, October 8, 2004, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A minor did not carry his burden of establishing by substantial evidence a genuine issue of material fact as to the applicability of either the doctrine of apparent authority or the doctrine of agency by estoppel in a malpractice suit.
|
|||||
| City of Mobile v. Robertson, 2030689,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, October 8, 2004, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence supported Mobile County Personnel Board's decision to increase police officer's suspension as officer spoke to media when he was off-duty in violation of police department order. Officer was police officer 24 hours a day.
|
|||||
| Employees' Ret. Sys. Bd. of Control v. Givhan, 2030075,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, October 8, 2004, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even if decedent's incapacity rendered her retirement election void, no one elected any reduced-retirement option and notified retirement system of election before she retired. Decision that benefits ceased upon decedent's death was affirmed.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Bodenhamer, 1030747,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, October 8, 2004, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a divorce, when a wife agreed to extend the time to hear husband's motion to alter or amend, but did not expressly agree to extend time motion could be pending, trial court had no jurisdiction to grant motion after 90 days from motion's amendment.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Chamblee, 1030481,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, October 8, 2004, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where orders setting aside a judgment in favor of two individuals and granting judgment as a matter of law in favor of a corporation were void, the individuals were entitled to mandamus relief directing vacation of the same.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Mut. Sav. Life Ins. Co., 1031021,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, October 8, 2004, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering insurance company to disclose nonpublic customer information to an individual upon her motion to compel as the production fell within the judicial process exception to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Nat'l Western Life Ins. Co., 1030867 and 1030868,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, October 8, 2004, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an order compelling the production of private customer information amounted to judicial process under 15 U.S.C.S. ¿ 6802(e)(8), two insurers were not prohibited from responding to that judicial process and disclosing the requested information.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Pelham Tank Lines, Inc., 1030220,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, October 8, 2004, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petition seeking mandamus relief from an order granting intervention was untimely filed, did not allege good cause for the appeals court to consider the petition, and no civil or appellate rule allowed for tolling of the time to file said petition.
|
|||||
| Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Raine, 2030592,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, October 8, 2004, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The denial of an insurer's motion to intervene in a traffic accident suit against its insured for the sole purpose of clarifying the verdict in relation to coverage issues in the insurance policy was proper and was affirmed.
|
|||||
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. |
