 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bryan v. Ala. Power Co., 1060693,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, January 23, 2009, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Power company was properly granted summary judgment on farmers' claims of negligence and wantonness because the power company did not breach its duty to the farmers in the operation of a dam when flooding damaged the farmers' properties.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Carruth, 1071618,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, January 23, 2009, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because nothing in the language in Ala. R. Crim. P. 32.1(f) authorized a circuit court to grant defendant permission to file an "out-of-time" petition for a writ of certiorari in the state supreme court, and because defendant's Ala. R. App. P. 2(b) petition had been denied, the circuit court erred in granting defendant's Rule 32.1(f) motion.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Hatfield, 1070537,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, January 23, 2009, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's argument that trial court erred in failing to give a jury instruction on felony murder as a lesser included offense was sufficiently preserved for appellate review pursuant to Ala. R. Crim. P. 21.3 because it was apparent from charge conference colloquy that the trial court understood nature and grounds for defendant's objection.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Jefferson County Sheriff's Dep't, 2070634,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, January 23, 2009, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the parties' extension of time to review the evidence did not extend the time for a decision under Jefferson County, Ala., Pers. Bd. R. & Regs. 12.6, a hearing officer's report and recommendation became the board's order; since the order was not adverse to the employer, its appeal should have been dismissed.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Massey Chevrolet, Inc., 2071082, 2071089,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, January 23, 2009, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a workers' compensation matter, trial court erred in ruling doctor two was an authorized physician and ordering employer to pay for treatments he gave employee; doctor two was an authorized physician to the extent authorized by doctor one, and as doctor one at some point withdrew authorization, a determination of when that happened was required.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Quick, 1071644,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, January 23, 2009, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant was serving time pending trial on a capital-murder and three burglary charges, pursuant to Ala. Code ¿ 15-18-5, the time he spent in jail awaiting trial should have been applied to one of his remaining burglary convictions when he was acquitted of the capital-murder charge, regardless of whether he was able to make bond.
|
|||||
| LaConsay v. Langley, 2070999,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, January 23, 2009, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the owners' first appeals were taken from a nonfinal judgment, the probate court had continuing jurisdiction over the issue of whether to award litigation expenses under Ala. Code ¿ 18-1A-232(a); therefore, because the owners had no need to seek mandamus relief, they were entitled to summary judgment on the issue.
|
|||||
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. |
