 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Peoples v. State, CR-04-0421,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 3, 2006, Released* * Note from the reporter of decisions: On June 16, 2006, on return to remand, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, without opinion. On July 14, 2006, that court denied rehearing, without opinion. On September 15, 2006, the Supreme Court denied certiorari review, without opinion (1051559).
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although there was sufficient evidence from which a jury could conclude that defendant aided and abetted in the shooting of the victims, his conviction for felony murder under Ala. Code § 13A-6-2(a)(17), necessarily acquitted him of attempted murder under Ala. Code §§ 13A-6-2(a)(3), 13A-4-2.
|
|||||
| Phillips v. State, CR-04-2589,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 3, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because Ala. R. Crim. P. 27.6(a) simply provided that defendant's revocation hearing had to be held before the sentencing court, which it was, the circuit judge had jurisdiction to revoke his probation.
|
|||||
| R.P. v. State Dep't of Human Res., 2041039,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 3, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While grounds for terminating parental rights, under Ala. Code 26-18-7, may have existed, it was error to grant termination when (1) parents appeared to be making sufficient progress to address the reasons their children were removed from their custody, and (2) a grandparent was available and willing to provide a viable alternative to termination.
|
|||||
| Roden v. Roden, 2040796,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 3, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court lacked jurisdiction under Ala. R. Civ. P. 59.1 to amend its judgment since, while order was filed within 90 days of husband's second postjudgment motion, more than 90 days had elapsed since husband filed his substantively identical first postjudgment motion, and 90-day period began to run on date on which husband filed his first motion.
|
|||||
| Shewmake v. Estate of Shewmake, 1041220,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, February 3, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a settlement agreement between a conservator and a guardian ad litem did not come within the provisions of Ala. Code § 34-3-21, and because the conservator did not show that the probate court's findings were wrong, the probate court properly denied the conservator's motion to vacate an order approving the settlement agreement.
|
|||||
| State v. Dean, CR-04-1418,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 3, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the legislature specifically limited the application of Ala. Code § 13A-5-40(a)(14) to witnesses for whom a subpoena had actually been issued, and because the State failed to subpoena the victim as a witness prior to his death, the trial court properly dismissed the capital murder charge against defendant.
|
|||||
| State v. Stovall, CR-04-2268,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 3, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A court remanded the State's appeal from trial court's order granting defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment against him because of speedy trial violations because the record did not include evidence about each of factors set forth in Barker v. Wingo, and the trial court did not make findings regarding each of the factors set forth in Barker.
|
|||||
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. |
