 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ex parte Reindel, 1051021,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, March 2, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As plaintiffs alleged defendants directed their co-conspirators to commit acts in Alabama in furtherance of conspiracy, thus making threshold showing that jurisdiction over defendants was proper under Ala. R. Civ. P. 4.2(b), and defendants failed to show that exercise of jurisdiction was improper, defendants' motion to dismiss was properly denied.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Trawick, 1051563,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, March 2, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a trial court adjudicated defendant's jurisdictional claim on the merits in a prior petition, defendant was precluded from reasserting that jurisdictional claim in a successive Ala. R. Crim. P. 32 petition. Accordingly, defendant's claim that he had been illegally sentenced under the Habitual Felony Offender Act was precluded.
|
|||||
| Gooden v. City of Talladega, 1041780,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, March 2, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even if an officer violated Ala. Code § 32-5A-170 by speeding during his high-speed chase of a decedent, a personal representative's wrongful death suit against him was properly dismissed because she did not offer substantial evidence indicating that such a violation proximately caused the decedent to wreck his vehicle and sustain fatal injuries.
|
|||||
| Jackson v. State, CR-05-2017,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, March 2, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction of second-degree robbery was reversed and his conviction was reduced to third-degree robbery, as there was no evidence that he was aided by another person actually present, as was required to establish a prima facie case of second-degree robbery in violation of Ala. Code § 13A-8-42(a).
|
|||||
| Lands v. Lull Int'l, Inc., 1051278,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, March 2, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As manufacturer made prima facie showing that plaintiffs' breach-of-warranty claim was time-barred by Ala. Code § 7-2-725, plaintiffs had burden to produce substantial evidence that § 7-2-725(2)'s exception to limitation period applied. As they failed to produce warranty, they did not meet burden; manufacturer was properly granted summary judgment.
|
|||||
| Martinez v. State, CR-05-1669,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, March 2, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because one single act could not be both negligent and reckless, the jury's verdicts were mutually exclusive; accordingly, on remand, it was determined that defendant's conviction for third-degree assault could not stand.
|
|||||
| Nickens v. State, CR-06-0109,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, March 2, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by not objecting when trial court did not instruct jury on definition of "deprive" with regard to its instruction on first-degree theft of property, Ala. Code § 13A-8-3(b). Without this definition, the jury could not properly consider the element of inmate's intent to deprive victim of his property.
|
|||||
| Patton v. State, CR-05-2156,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, March 2, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As the validity of informations, which inmate alleged were not sworn, was irrelevant to whether the trial court had jurisdiction to take his guilty pleas, his claim was not truly jurisdictional. Therefore, he was not entitled to any relief because his post-conviction petition was filed well beyond Ala. R. Crim. P. 32.2(c)'s limitations period.
|
|||||
| State v. J.R.M., CR-05-0949,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, March 2, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although defendant did everything that was asked of him as a confidential informant for a drug task force, as the district attorney's office was not a party to a plea agreement between defendant and law enforcement officials, it was not bound by it. Thus, the trial court abused its discretion in enforcing the purported "agreement."
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
