 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Am. Res. Ins. Co. v. H & H Stephens Constr., Inc., 1040054,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, March 24, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's judgment was reversed as umbrella endorsement unambiguously stated that unless coverage was provided in insurance policy listed in Item 7 of Declarations section of umbrella policy, it did not cover claims arising out of use of any auto. Only policy covering car driven by insured's employee was not listed in Item 7.
|
|||||
| Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's v. S. Natural Gas Co., 1041880,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, March 24, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where insured party sought coverage from insurers based on environmental damage at five of insured party's compressor sites and where trial court issued judgment after first phase of trial regarding two compressor stations, judgment, certified under Ala. R. Civ. P. 54(b), was not final. It left open issue of damages as to three compressor stations.
|
|||||
| Cobb v. State, CR-05-0422,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, March 24, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the inmate was charged with first-degree robbery under Ala. Code ¿ 13A-8-41 and pled guilty to second-degree robbery, a remand was required. The indictment did not allege that another person aided the inmate in the robbery, and it could not be determined whether the indictment was amended to make this allegation.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Howard, CR-05-0624,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, March 24, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a prosecution of petitioner for criminally negligent homicide, because petitioner, who had filed a petition for writ of prohibition, was over the age of 16 at the time of the alleged offense and was charged with a felony, not a misdemeanor, under Ala. Code ¿ 12-15-34.1, petitioner had to be charged, arrested, and tried as an adult.
|
|||||
| Jackson v. State, CR-04-2035,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, March 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's rental agreement for furniture did not create security interest under Ala. Code ¿¿7-1-201(37) in the rental company, which was still the owner as defined by Ala. Code ¿ 13A-8-1(8); sale of furniture to third party justified theft charge under Ala. Code ¿ 13A-8-4; charges were properly not dismissed and guilty plea was properly accepted.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. State, CR-04-1814,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, March 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence that defendant forcibly raped his 11-year-old stepdaughter was sufficient to convict him of either first degree sexual abuse by forcible compulsion (Ala. Code ¿ 13A-6-66 (a)(1)) or when the victim was less than 12 and he was more than 16 (¿ 13A-6-66(a)(3)), but his convictions under both subsections violated the Double Jeopardy Clause.
|
|||||
| Sanders v. State, CR-04-1577,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, March 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in applying the firearm-enhancement statute, Ala. Code ¿ 13A-5-6(a)(4) and (5), to defendant's sentence for first degree robbery, where there was no evidence presented indicating that any firearm was seen in the defendant's possession or used by him at the time the robbery was committed.
|
|||||
| Shaw v. State, CR-04-2145,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, March 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In postconviction proceedings, an inmate's claim that the trial court failed to conduct an allocution before sentencing him was not jurisdictional; therefore, it was procedurally barred by Ala. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a)(3) and (5) because it could have been, but was not, raised and addressed at trial and on appeal.
|
|||||
| State Dep't of Human Res. v. A.J.T., 2050024,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, March 24, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the termination of a father's parental rights with an award of visitation was contradictory, the case had to be remanded for the trial court to determine whether the father's rights should be terminated without the reservation of visitation or whether termination of the father's parental rights was not truly in the children's best interest.
|
|||||
| Sullivan v. State, CR-04-1578,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, March 24, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was insufficient to support finding defendant in direct criminal contempt, as none of the conduct giving rise to the contempt finding occurred in the presence of the judge who found the contempt. Defendant was denied her due process right to a reasonable time to prepare a defense pursuant to Ala. R. Crim. P. 33.3(d).
|
|||||
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. |
