 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Buco Bldg. Constructors, Inc. v. Mayer Elec. Supply Co., 2050464,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, December 22, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Contractor's appeal was dismissed as it lacked standing since its release of lien bond was not substituted as security for satisfaction of supplier's claims in place of supplier's lien on church's property as bond was not filed with court and certificate was not issued showing transfer of lien from property as required by Ala. Code § 35-11-233(b).
|
|||||
| Ex parte Flexible Prods. Co., 1051137,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, December 22, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Manufacturers' petition for writ of mandamus directing trial court to sever claims of the Tuscaloosa miners and transfer those cases from Bessemer Division to another venue was granted because Bessemer Division was improper as to those actions where it was undisputed the claims of the Tuscaloosa miners did not arise within the Bessemer Division.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Hamilton, 1041750,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, December 22, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order denying the inmate's habeas petition was reversed because the trial court did not consider all of the Barker factors; trial court should have concluded that the delay of 29 months was presumptively prejudicial and therefore should have examined and balanced the remaining three Barker factors in evaluating the inmate's speedy-trial claim.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Quality Cas. Ins. Co., 1051046,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, December 22, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Case law which held that Ala. Code § 27-14-7 applied only to original policies and not renewal policies, when renewal policy was issued based on application for original policy, was overruled. Insurer's claim that it was not obligated on a renewal policy based on insured's misrepresentations pursuant to Ala. Code § 27-14-7 was not foreclosed.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Troy Univ., 1051318,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, December 22, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Immunity protection of Ala. Const. art. I, § 14 extended to a state university. Thus, the university was entitled to dismissal of claims against it, and a writ of mandamus directing lower court to dismiss the claims was proper. Also, since vice chancellor was sued in her official capacity, she was also entitled to dismissal and mandamus writ.
|
|||||
| Morrisette v. Fluor Corp. (Ex parte Fluor Corp.), 2050724,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, December 22, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Writ of mandamus was issued directing trial court to dismiss worker's compensation suit against employer as claimant's employment was principally localized in Georgia under Ala. Code § 25-5-35(d)(2) since claimant regularly worked at employer's place of business in Georgia at time of alleged injury. Trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
|
|||||
| Pinkerton Sec. & Investigation Servs. v. Chamblee, 1051138,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, December 22, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When an employer filed its third motion under Ala. R. Civ. P. 60(b) in a second action arising out of a employee dispute, the second trial court lacked jurisdiction over the third Rule 60(b) motion, and it erred in entering summary judgment because summary judgment was a decision on the merits and the second trial court lacked jurisdiction.
|
|||||
| Reed v. State ex rel. Davis, 1051043,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, December 22, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Quo warranto action under Ala. Code § 6-6-591(a)(1) was the proper action to remove a county commissioner from office under circumstances in which the commissioner was ineligible to hold that office due to a felony conviction which had not been pardoned at the time of his election, despite the fact that the felony was later pardoned.
|
|||||
| Wright v. Childree, 1050164, 1050208,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, December 22, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A judgment in favor of an attorney who represented indigent defendants was upheld as Ala. Code § 15-12-21(d) provided for the payment of office-overhead expenses to lawyers appointed to represent indigent defendants in the State of Alabama. Other issues raised by the attorney remained pending.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
