 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Hexcel Decatur, Inc. v. Vickers, 1031447,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, February 25, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under stare decisis, it was inappropriate to overturn an interpretation of Ala. Code § 25-5-11.1, barring a worker's retaliatory discharge for filing a workers' compensation claim, holding that a suit claiming a violation of this statute could be maintained even if an employer fired a worker before the worker filed a civil action seeking benefits.
|
|||||
| Hobdy v. State, CR-03-2149,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 25, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in denying defendant's motions for a judgment of acquittal as the jury could have reasonably inferred that defendant struck the victim with a box cutter or knife, and the evidence supported the jury's inference that defendant and the victim were involved in a dating relationship for purposes of Ala. Code § 13A-6-131.
|
|||||
| King v. Cape, 2030253,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 25, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Co-employees were properly granted summary judgment in an employee's willful misconduct action where a supervisory co-employee's knowledge of the need for repair or maintenance on a machine, on which the employee was allegedly injured, was not only not immaterial, but was a key element of liability under Ala. Code § 25-5-11(c)(2).
|
|||||
| Mims v. First Citizens Bank, 2030737,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 25, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Debtor's security interest in the second of two cotton pickers, by his possession of the same and an assignment by his predecessor, granted it priority in the same over a bank, as no evidence was presented that said interest was ever unperfected. But, absent a record regarding the first cotton picker, the trial court's judgment was upheld.
|
|||||
| Musgrove Constr., Inc. v. Malley, 2020093,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 25, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A worker's refusal to submit to a functional capacities evaluation for his permanent and total disability request was reasonable, as it was not shown that information therefrom was unavailable from other sources orthat it was needed to put the parties on equal footing, under Ala. R. Civ. P. 35(a).
|
|||||
| Presley v. State, CR-03-0786,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 25, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Circuit court's failure to serve defendant with copies of its order granting the State's motion for partial dismissal of his Ala. R. Crim. P. 32 petition, and its orders denying his motions for discovery and for funds to retain experts, violated his due process rights, as such forced him to miss a deadline to file new discovery requests.
|
|||||
| Prestwood v. State, CR-04-0366,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 25, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of defendant's petition under Ala. Code § 13A-5-9.1 for a sentence reconsideration was an appealable order. Defendant was properly ruled ineligible under § 13A-5-9.1 for a sentence reconsideration because he was serving a 20-year sentence and only habitual offenders serving life without parole were eligible for reconsideration.
|
|||||
| Ransaw v. State, CR-03-2154,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 25, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant sufficiently set forth a post conviction claim of ineffective assistance of counsel where defendant asserted, inter alia, that the only evidence linking him to the crimes related to an alleged collect call to victim made by defendant, in which defendant confessed, and that counsel failed to properly investigate the alleged call.
|
|||||
| Rudd v. State, CR-03-2031,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 25, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
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. |
