 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Classroomdirect.com, LLC v. Draphix, LLC, 1060739, 1060740,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, April 25, 2008, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing an LLC to use a trade name because it prohibited the LLC from using phraseology implying a relationship between it and a seller. The seller's Lanham Act suit was not an exceptional case mandating an attorney fees award under 15 U.S.C.S. § 1117(a) when a jury awarded minimal compensatory damages.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Booker, 1070376,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, April 25, 2008, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's Ala. R. Crim. P. 32 postconviction relief petition was properly denied after he pleaded guilty to capital murder because the petition did not allege a jurisdiction defect. Under Ala. Code § 13A-5-42, the State's failure to present sufficient evidence to prove a defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt was a nonjurisdictional defect.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Kennedy, 1061377,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, April 25, 2008, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Ex parte Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 1060374,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, April 25, 2008, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a federal court abstained from hearing a case under the Colorado River doctrine, that case was not considered as an action being prosecuted, for purposes of Ala. Code § 6-5-440, and as a result, a petition for mandamus seeking dismissal of a state court action, based on the existence of the previously filed federal action, was denied.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Vulcan Materials Co., 1051184,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, April 25, 2008, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Materials company's petition for a writ of mandamus to vacate an order requiring it to produce information a construction company sought in its requests for production of documents was granted in part. Discovery of the material company's involvement in other litigation was unduly burdensome and oppressive and not closely tailored to the litigation.
|
|||||
| Lingo v. State, CR-06-1633,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, April 25, 2008, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| M.H. v. State, CR-06-1626,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, April 25, 2008, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence for first-degree sexual abuse was illegal because it exceeded the maximum authorized by Ala. Code § 13A-5-6(a)(3). Ala. Code § 13A-6-66 applied to the conviction, not Ala. Code § 13A-6-69.1, because defendant committed the sexual abuse between 2001 and 2005, and § 13A-6-69.1, did not apply to crimes occurring before 2006.
|
|||||
| Mashburn v. State, CR-06-0328,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, April 25, 2008, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was properly sentenced to death for five counts of capital murder because the trial court weighed the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and the sentence was not disproportionate or excessive. Defendant committed two murders during two robberies and two burglaries and killed two people pursuant to one scheme or course of conduct.
|
|||||
| Wallace v. State, CR-06-1080,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, April 25, 2008, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was denied his right to a probation revocation hearing because the proceeding at which the trial court revoked his probation was not a probation revocation hearing under Ala. Code § 15-22-54. No testimony was heard, no evidence was taken, and defendant, who did not waive his right to a hearing, was not afforded an opportunity to be heard.
|
|||||
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. |
