 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Knight v. State, CR-04-0199,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, March 18, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although defendant reserved suppression issue for appeal before he entered guilty pleas, there was no indication defendant obtained adverse ruling from trial court on suppression motion; thus, he did not preserve suppression issue for review. Case was remanded for resentencing because sentence for harassment exceeded maximum allowed by statute.
|
|||||
| McGlocklin v. State, CR-03-1628,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, March 18, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction for first-degree sexual abuse, a violation of Ala. Code § 13A-6-66(a)(1), was reversed because the State failed to present sufficient evidence of forcible compulsion; defendant's actions, while reprehensible, did not subject victim to sexual contact by forcible compulsion because he stopped touching her when she resisted his actions.
|
|||||
| Moffett v. Stevenson, 2031163,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, March 18, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court erred in denying the inmate's petition for writ of mandamus because he did not serve the prison officials and the officials of the Alabama Department of Corrections. The court did not give the inmate 14 days of notice, as required under Ala. R. Civ. P. 4(b), to allow the inmate to show good cause to extend the time for service.
|
|||||
| Osborn v. State, CR-03-1992,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, March 18, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence of a prior theft conviction was inadmissible in a prosecution for receiving stolen property under Ala. Code § 13A-8-18(a)(1), where said conviction was not connected to the offense being prosecuted. Further, because the error was not rendered harmless by a limiting instruction, the error was reversible, entitling defendant to a new trial.
|
|||||
| Phillips v. State, CR-04-0269,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, March 18, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because trial court's probation revocation order imposing additional three-year term of imprisonment for each felony conviction neglected to take into consideration the time defendant had already served, total period of confinement ordered exceeded three-year maximum allowed under Ala. Code § 15-18-8(a)(1) (1975); thus, he had to be resentenced.
|
|||||
| Price v. State, CR-03-1652,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, March 18, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Riscorp, Inc. v. Norman, 1031514, 1031946,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, March 18, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: JML should have been granted on breach of contract and conversion claims against insurer by shareholders regarding consideration due them for a merger; shareholders were not third-party beneficiaries of merger agreement so they could not claim breach of it, and they never owned merger funds so they could not claim conversion of funds by insurer.
|
|||||
| Rosborough v. State, CR-02-1854,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, March 18, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| SouthTrust Bank v. Jones, Morrison, Womack & Dearing, P.C., 2030272,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, March 18, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was improperly granted to lawyers on bank's Alabama Legal Services Liability Act malpractice action since the action was timely under Ala. Code § 6-5-574 and bank showed it would be liable for lawyers' alleged malicious prosecution of a debt collection suit through vicarious liability principles applicable to agency relationships.
|
|||||
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. |
