 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Batey & Sanders, Inc. v. Dodd, 2981407,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, December 10, 1999, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court erred in reinstating the retaliatory discharge claim; since plaintiff was an at-will employee, defendant company could, under Georgia law, terminate his employment without liability.
|
|||||
| Batey v. State, CR-98-2482,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, December 10, 1999, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not have jurisdiction to render a judgment of conviction or impose a sentence, as there was no indictment or complaint giving appellant notice of the criminal charges against him.
|
|||||
| D.S.S. v. Clay County Dep't of Human Resources, 2980615, 2980616,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, December 10, 1999, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was clear/convincing that appellant was unwilling/unable to discharge responsibilities for children, her condition would not change in future, and there were no viable alternatives to termination of parental rights.
|
|||||
| Davis v. State, CR-98-0103,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, December 10, 1999, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court erred in remitting mandatory fine imposed under Demand Reduction Assessment Act on ground that defendant was unable to pay fine; reason for remitting fine did not meet statutory conditions for suspension or reduction.
|
|||||
| Estes v. State, CR-98-0677,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, December 10, 1999, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court had jurisdiction to address matter raised by state on defendant's appeal concerning defendant's unauthorized sentence and remanded for reinstatement of higher sentence under the Habitual Felony Offender Act.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Maples, 1981451,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, December 10, 1999, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Criminal defendant was not entitled to receive additional DNA-related evidence where he failed to demonstrate he was substantially prejudiced by not having the additional evidence available to him at the trial.
|
|||||
| Goodgain v. State, CR-98-1603,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, December 10, 1999, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in revoking probation based solely on the hearsay testimony of a police detective that probationer had committed an alleged robbery.
|
|||||
| Griffin v. State, CR-97-1026,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, December 10, 1999, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Murder case was remanded for trial court to enter specific written findings concerning existence or nonexistence of aggravating, mitigating, and nonstatutory circumstances; 36 other points of error were rejected.
|
|||||
| Harville v. State, CR-98-2002,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, December 10, 1999, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary denial of defendant's petition for post-conviction relief was improper since defendant's argument that his appellate counsel was ineffective could not have been raised at trial or on direct appeal.
|
|||||
| King v. State, CR-98-1555,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, December 10, 1999, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's case was remanded, since it was unclear from the record whether the trial judge had properly informed defendant that his waiver of his right to counsel could be withdrawn at any stage of the proceedings.
|
|||||
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. |
