In re: Teplick v. Moulton
| Docket Number | 1111283 |
| Decision Date | 25 January 2013 |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
85 cases
-
State v. Epic Tech, LLC
...in state court. See Ala. Dep't of Transp. v. Harbert Int'l, Inc., 990 So. 2d 831, 840 (Ala. 2008), abrogated in part by Ex parte Moulton, 116 So. 3d 1119 (Ala. 2013). State law cannot limit the Individual Defendants’ immunity because ‘tribal immunity is a matter of federal law and is not su......
-
Segrest v. Segrest
...of the plaintiff. Drummond Co. v. Alabama Dep't of Transp., 937 So. 2d 56, 58 (Ala. 2006) [,abrogated on other grounds, Ex parte Moulton, 116 So. 3d 1119 (Ala. 2013) ]." Daniel v. Moye, 224 So. 3d 115, 127 (Ala. 2016).Discussion The dispositive question in this appeal is whether the circuit......
-
Alabama v. PCI Gaming Auth.
...at 20 n. 6 (citing Ala. Dep't of Transp. v. Harbert Int'l, Inc., 990 So.2d 831 (Ala.2008), abrogated on other grounds by Ex parte Moulton, 116 So.3d 1119 (Ala.2013) ).) The State further asserts that, when “governmental officers remove a case from state court (where they would have no sover......
-
Ala. River Grp., Inc. v. Conecuh Timber, Inc.
...Promissory fraud, unlike misrepresentation, is a claim "based upon a promise to act or not to act in the future." Ex parte Moulton, 116 So.3d 1119, 1144 (Ala. 2013) (citations and quotation marks omitted). To succeed on a claim of promissory fraud, the ARG defendants note, plaintiffs must p......
Request a trial to view additional results