 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Russell v. State, CR-04-1153,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, November 29, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Claims not raised below in challenging revocation of work release status were procedurally barred by Ala. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a)(3), (5), from appeal of denial of Ala. R. Crim. P. 32 petition; however, Ala. R. Crim. P. 32.1(f) allowed claim of ineffective counsel for failure to timely appeal to be raised for first time on appeal; remand was ordered.
|
|||||
| Casa Invs. Co. v. Boles, 2040773,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, December 2, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the prosecution of lawsuits in the State of Alabama to recover on otherwise valid contracts did not constitute doing business within the State under Ala. Code ¿ 10-2B-15.01(a), the door-closing statute, the trial court erred in dismissing a corporate assignee's collection action against a debtor.
|
|||||
| First Southern Bank v. O'Brien, 2040667,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, December 2, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A bank's appeal was dismissed, as the order appealed from was not an Ala. R. Civ. P. 54(b) final judgment, because claims involving a second creditor, and his lien, were not addressed. Moreover, the issues in the separate claims were so closely intertwined that separate adjudication posed a risk of inconsistent results.
|
|||||
| Sumlin v. Sumlin, 2040238,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, December 2, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: After considering a wife's motion to set aside a divorce and custody default judgment in light of the Kirtland factors, an order denying said motion was reversed, as the meritorious-defense factor weighed in favor of such relief, a genuine issue on the culpable-conduct factor existed, and prejudice was unlikely to result if relief were granted.
|
|||||
| Buchanan v. Buchanan, 2040226,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, December 9, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in granting a wife half of the amount of the husband's retirement account as of the date of the divorce instead of half of the lesser amount that existed at the time of a contempt hearing, as the court found the parties equally at fault for the failure to transfer to the shares in a timely fashion.
|
|||||
| Gladden v. Gladden, 2040467,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, December 9, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court, in a criminal contempt case under Ala. R. Civ. P. 70A, could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the former husband willfully disobeyed the order requiring that he pay alimony on or before the 10th of each month. Although he stated that he mailed the payment on the fourth, the former wife never received the payment.
|
|||||
| Smith v. Smith, 2040310,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, December 9, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since the trial court's retirement-benefits award contained premarriage retirement benefits, and income and appreciation thereon, and postcomplaint retirement benefits, and income and appreciation thereon, in violation of Ala. Code ¿ 30-2-51(b), that issue had to be remanded for a new trial.
|
|||||
| State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Brown, 2040367,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, December 9, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Husband was erroneously granted judgment on the pleadings on his loss of consortium claim, as language under the policy at issue included his claim with that of his injured spouse, and such was a express limitation on the insurer's liability for bodily injury.
|
|||||
| Townson v. Stonicher, 1041047, 1041083,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, December 9, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Voters who included identification with their absentee ballots that did not conform to Ala. Code ¿ 17-11A-1(b) failed to substantially comply with the essential requirements of the absentee-voting law. Hence, the trial court erred in allowing those voters to cure that defect by presenting acceptable forms of identification at trial.
|
|||||
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. |
