 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Miller v. City of Fairhope, CR-02-0235,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 28, 2003, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although word defendant used to describe victim was insulting and socially unacceptable, it was not shown that use of it was inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction, and, thus, defendant's harassment conviction was reversed.
|
|||||
| Morgan v. Farmers & Merchs. Bank, 1011290,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, February 28, 2003, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Money market certificates could qualify as instruments if under the usage of the marketplace the certificates were of a type which was in ordinary course of business transferred by delivery with any necessary indorsement or assignment.
|
|||||
| Paulk v. McCarty, 2011225, 2011277,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 28, 2003, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in not awarding litigation expenses to the property ownership interest holders, as its final judgment regarding condemnor's eminent domain action reduced "scope of property to be taken" and implicated statute authorizing award.
|
|||||
| Quetgles v. State, CR-01-1596,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 28, 2003, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Statute prohibiting the display of genitals was not unconstitutionally overbroad and was not a content-based restriction on defendant's First Amendment right to free expression. Thus, his conviction under the statute prohibiting the same was upheld.
|
|||||
| Seay v. State, CR-02-0048,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 28, 2003, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court was obligated to make specific findings following an evidentiary hearing on appellant's postconviction petition seeking relief from convictions on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel as to why an appeal was not filed.
|
|||||
| Steele v. McRaney, 2010850, 2010911,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 28, 2003, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment for former owners was proper where warranty deed with words "grant, bargain, sell" did not create covenant of seisin against encumbrances and for quiet enjoyment to appellant owners, but covenanted against acts of former owners.
|
|||||
| Straughn v. State, CR-01-1378,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 28, 2003, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Separate convictions upon the single possession of marijuana violated double jeopardy principles, as both counts of possession of marijuana stemmed from a single operation. Thus, the conviction and sentence for the second count was vacated.
|
|||||
| Wilson v. State, CR-01-2256,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 28, 2003, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Convicted criminal was entitled to file an out-of-time appeal from the revocation of his probation, as the record showed that he informed his court-appointed counsel of his desire to appeal, and neither State nor trial court refuted that showing.
|
|||||
| Ziegler v. State, CR-00-1987,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 28, 2003, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The jury instructions on intent and on accomplice liability, considered together, were proper, and thorough and specific enough to ensure that a guilty verdict would not be returned unless the jury found defendant had the specific intent to kill.
|
|||||
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. |
