 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Scott v. State, CR-02-0347,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 25, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's death sentence for capital murder was remanded for additional findings where the trial court considered aggravating circumstances that were not contained in Ala. Code ¿ 13A-5-49 and where it did not make clear and specific findings on each aggravating and mitigating circumstance, as required by Ala. Code ¿ 13A-5-47(d).
|
|||||
| Segrest v. Lewis, 2030348,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 25, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sovereign immunity protected director of state agency in suit brought by job applicant who, relying on letter from director which led applicant to believe she was hired by agency, resigned from her old job and then, when application was not approved, was unable to get her job back; the director acted in good faith and was immune.
|
|||||
| Shrader v. Emplrs. Mut. Cas. Co., 1020110,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, February 25, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insurance policy provision defining an "insured" as an employee acting within the scope of duties while conducting the business of the employer did not conflict with a separate provision in the same policy providing coverage for violations of constitutional/civil rights so as to create an ambiguity that had to be construed against the insurer.
|
|||||
| Sleasman v. Sleasman, 2030412,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 25, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appeal of trial court's order granting father's motion to modify custody and awarding custody of minor children to father was dismissed, since trial court reserved issue of the mother's visitation, and, therefore, the order was not a final order. In these circumstances, it was the duty of the appellate court to dismiss the appeal ex mero motu.
|
|||||
| Smith v. State, CR-03-2146,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 25, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Overruling prior holdings, the court held that a prisoner's failure to properly verify his petition under Ala. R. Crim. P. 32.6(a) was not a jurisdictional prerequisite but a matter of form, which was waived because the State failed to properly raise it. However, a presentence report was not newly discovered evidence under Ala. R. Crim. P. 32.1(e).
|
|||||
| State v. Hargett, CR-03-1548,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 25, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a trial court did not make any factual findings or legal conclusions on the record, the basis for granting defendant's motion to suppress cocaine that was found in his mouth after a traffic stop could not be determined. Remand was ordered for written findings and conclusions on the legality of the initial stop and the subsequent search.
|
|||||
| State v. Morgan, CR-03-2060,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 25, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Due to information from others, officers executing an arrest warrant reasonably thought the warrant's subject lived in a house they entered, and reasonably believed the subject was in the house when they entered, so the entry was lawful, defendant's subsequent consent to the entry was valid, and contraband in plain view in the house was admissible.
|
|||||
| Tenn Tom Bldg. v. Olen, Nicholas & Copeland, P.C., 1030967,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, February 25, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While the evidence was insufficient to establish that a joint venture knew or had reason to know of a probability that a trespasser would intentionally set fire to its vacant building, the joint venture owed not duty to the adjoining owners; therefore, the trial erred in denying it's Ala. Code ¿ 12-21-12 motion for a judgment as a matter of law.
|
|||||
| Upton v. State, CR-03-1207,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 25, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: DUI conviction was reversed on the ground that prosecutor was improperly allowed to introduce evidence of defendant's prior DUI convictions to impeach his testimony that he did not drink and drive where the transcript showed that defendant did not specifically state that he had never driven after drinking or that he had never been convicted of DUI.
|
|||||
| Washington v. State, CR-03-1063,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 25, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions for capital murder, under Ala. Code ¿ 13A-5-40, and sentence of death were affirmed because the evidence and statement obtained were admissible as they were obtained either incident to a lawful arrest or after defendant consented to a search.
|
|||||
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. |
