 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Barrett v. McPherson, 2060954,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 29, 2008, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although the Ala. Code § 7-3-118(a) statute of limitations did not become effective until after a cause of action on a promissory note had accrued, the statute applied to the suit to collect the balance due on the note because suit was filed after the effective date of the statute.
|
|||||
| Dobyne v. State, 2060852,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 29, 2008, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Property owner in an Ala. Code § 20-2-93 action lacked standing to challenge forfeiture of certain personal and real property because, in his criminal trial, he disclaimed interest in property and had no legally protected right; however, State failed to prove a link between cars seized and owner's acts that violated Ala. Code § 20-2-93(a)(4).
|
|||||
| Galvin v. Monday, 1061613,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, February 29, 2008, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Muilenburg, 2060431,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 29, 2008, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ala. Code § 25-5-57(a)(3)(a) award was supported by inference from circumstantial evidence that hazardous work condition caused an accident. Ala. Code § 25-5-59(b) penalty was erroneously assessed because there was a good faith dispute as to liability; although accident arose in course of employment, accident may not have arisen out of employment.
|
|||||
| Holloway v. State, CR-06-1267,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 29, 2008, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Fine assessed under Drug Demand Reduction Assessment Act was error, even though defendant had more than three prior convictions in Ohio for trafficking in cocaine, because those convictions were not enumerated in Ala. Code § 13A-12-281(a) and the fine imposed exceeded the fine mandated for first offenders in Alabama.
|
|||||
| Marks v. State, CR-06-0412,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 29, 2008, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant made only a general challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence in his motions for a judgment of acquittal and did not specifically argue to the trial court that accomplices' testimony was not sufficiently corroborated, his argument on appeal that the testimony was not corroborated was not preserved for review.
|
|||||
| McGowin v. McGowin, 2060406,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 29, 2008, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Child support award could not be calculated under the Ala. R. Jud. Admin. 32 guidelines because husband's monthly income exceeded uppermost limits of Rule 32 schedule, evidence established that children's reasonable needs were greater than the amount awarded in divorce judgment, and husband's income was sufficient to warrant a greater award.
|
|||||
| McNeal v. State, CR-06-1330,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 29, 2008, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Claim on appeal that raised the circuit court's jurisdiction was not barred by Ala. R. Crim. P. 32. Because defendant had alleged facts that, if true, would entitle him to relief from an allegedly illegal sentence, the circuit court erred in summarily dismissing his Rule 32 petition.
|
|||||
| Pride v. State, CR-06-1452,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 29, 2008, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner was entitled to an opportunity to prove his claim that a trial court lacked jurisdiction to convict him or impose a sentence because his claim was jurisdictional, was sufficiently pleaded to satisfy the requirements in Ala. R. Crim. P. 32.3 and Ala. R. Crim. P. 32.6(b), and was not refuted by the State.
|
|||||
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. |
