 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ex parte Batey, 1050947,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, November 17, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's argument in his Ala. R. Crim. P. 32 petition that the State failed to prove the prior felony convictions that were used to enhance his sentence was barred by Ala. R. Crim. P. 32.2 where defendant failed to raise the argument at trial or on appeal and case law repeatedly held that such an issue was not jurisdictional in nature.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Cintas Corp., 1050266,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, November 17, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a seller's parent company and corporate officers were not signatories to a contract with a manufacturer and a joint venture, the parent and the officers were not entitled to enforce a forum-selection clause in the contract; therefore, their petition for a writ of mandamus was denied.
|
|||||
| Lewis v. Lewis, 2050115,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, November 17, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence supported a trial court's order transferring physical custody of two minor children from their mother to their father because conditions in mother's household had become more chaotic since the entry of a prior modification order, children expressed strong wish to live with father, and disruptive effect of change of custody was not great.
|
|||||
| Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. D & G Trucking, Inc., 2041086,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, November 17, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment for trucking company was reversed as there was substantial evidence creating fact issue as to whether company's drivers were employees under Alabama Workers' Compensation Act since company placed some controls upon drivers' ability to deviate from instructions as to performance of work and company controlled payments to drivers.
|
|||||
| Lumpkin v. City of Gulf Shores, 2050634,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, November 17, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: City was not judicially estopped from arguing that property owners were not real parties in interest under Ala. R. Civ. P. 17 as city's decision to join them in action did not indicate that owners possessed right sought to be enforced. City joined owners to prevent possibilities of owners' rights not being protected and of inconsistent obligations.
|
|||||
| Miller Props., LLC v. Green, 1041148,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, November 17, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State supreme court dismissed mortgagor's appeal of trial court's denial of its motion to set aside foreclosure deed issued after it defaulted on a property it was purchasing; mortgagor's appeal was filed nine-months after a final judgment was entered in the case, which was beyond 42-day time limit for appealing set forth in Ala. R. App. P. 4(a).
|
|||||
| Perry & Williams, Inc. v. Mitchell, 2050508,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, November 17, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a scooter and lift would assist a disabled employee's mobility and function, because they would not in any way improve his medical condition, as required by Ala. Code § 25-5-77(a), the trial court erred in granting the employee's motion to compel the employer to pay for them.
|
|||||
| Prior v. Cancer Surgery of Mobile, P.C., 1050679,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, November 17, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In medical malpractice action against hospital, because widow sought to amend complaint to add new facts and different claim from claims asserted in original complaint and first amended complaint, second amended complaint did not relate back to original complaint, as amended, under Ala. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(2), and was barred by statute of limitations.
|
|||||
| Pritchett v. Mobile County, 2050668 and 2050785,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, November 17, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment for county was affirmed as 1910 property subdivision plat was properly recorded and conveyed irrevocable fee-simple interest in 30-foot-wide right-of-way to county, there was no evidence that county failed to use right-of-way, and roadway was not vacated pursuant to Ala. Code § 35-2-54.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
