 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ayler v. State, CR-04-0868,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, April 29, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because it could not be determined from the appellate record whether first-degree-robbery charges were amended to allege that defendant was aided by another person in the commission of the robberies, then the matter was remanded to decide whether defendant's convictions for second-degree robbery were to be vacated.
|
|||||
| Belcourt v. Belcourt, 2030713,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, April 29, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court erroneously awarded the wife attorney fees in the divorce case under the Alabama Litigation Accountability Act, Ala. Code ¿ 12-19-270 et seq., without providing substantial justification on the record. The trial court neither set out the reasons for the award in its order, nor did it do so at the hearing.
|
|||||
| Brooks v. State, CR-01-0607,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, April 29, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Capital murder, death sentenced defendant's Ala. R. Crim. P. 32 postconviction relief petition was properly denied, inter alia, because he waived ineffective trial counsel arguments that he did not raise in his denied new trial motion and appellate counsel was not ineffective (based upon sound appellate strategy and defendant not being prejudiced).
|
|||||
| Bryant v. State, CR-98-0023,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, April 29, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant had notice of the aggravating circumstances that could lead to a death penalty by enumeration in Ala. Code ¿ 13A-5-49; they were not elements of the offense, they did not have to be set in the indictment, and the jury properly found them sufficient to impose death as the court found on mandatory review under Ala. Code ¿ 13A-5-53(a).
|
|||||
| Calhoun v. State, CR-00-0002,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, April 29, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction of and death sentence for four counts of capital murder of victim during course of robbery, burglary, and sodomy and rape of murder victim's wife were affirmed, in part, based on "911" testimony of neighbor and wife and teeth bite and DNA evidence. Ring and Ex Parte Perkins were satisfied for borderline low IQ defendant.
|
|||||
| Dixon v. State, CR-03-1742,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, April 29, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court order finding defendant in contempt for failing to pay increased amounts of restitution and an amount to the Crime Victims Compensation Fund in exchange for probation was reversed because the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the contempt proceeding and the increased amounts violated Ala. R. Crim. P. 24.4.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Chem. Lime of Ala., Inc., 1040428,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, April 29, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As a manufacturer demonstrated that plaintiffs did not exercise due diligence in naming it in place of fictitious defendant, the relation-back doctrine did not apply. Thus, manufacturer showed a right to mandamus relief and was entitled to dismissal on those claims asserted against it which were not asserted within the two-year limitations period.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Layton, 1040210,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, April 29, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence was properly denied because trial court would have been within its discretion in ruling that doctor's letter stating that victim's psychological disorders would cause credibility problem was inadmissible, and thus, court could not conclude that evidence would have changed the result at trial.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Russell, 2031146,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, April 29, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Mother was entitled to mandamus relief, directing vacation of two orders relating to an award of custody to the father, because she was not afforded with due process, effective service of process, and an opportunity to be heard on the first order, and the second order failed to find that custody with the father was in the child's best interest.
|
|||||
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. |
