 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Adams v. State, CR-98-0496,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, April 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant was 17 years of age at the time of a capital murder, his sentence of death was due to be set aside pursuant to Roper; defendant was to be resentenced to life in the penitentiary without the possibility of parole.
|
|||||
| Bolte v. Robertson, 1040793 and 1040850,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, April 28, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a testator had devised all his right, title, and interest in real estate that he had inherited from his late wife to his executor, sold some of that real estate, and carried back a mortgage, under Ala. Code § 43-8-227(a)(1), the executor was entitled at the testator's death to the proceeds due from the sale of that real property.
|
|||||
| Boyce v. Cassese, 1040891,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, April 28, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An agreement between sellers and a golf club was an easement, not a license. It contained words typical of a conveyance of an interest in land; it indicated that the rights and obligations created in it were to run with the land; and the sellers, the owners of the servient estate, did not reserve the right to cancel the golf club's rights under it.
|
|||||
| Boyd v. State, CR-04-0936,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, April 28, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Brand v. State, CR-04-1882,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, April 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly allowed police officer to read the ingredients label on the boxes of cold medication to the jury in defendant's prosecution for unlawful manufacture of a controlled substance in violation of Ala. Code § 13A-12-217; such testimony fell within Ala. R. Evid. 803(17) "market list" exception to the hearsay rule.
|
|||||
| Brown v. State, CR-01-1900,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, April 28, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for capital murder during the commission of a burglary, in violation of Ala. Code § 13A-5-40(a)(4) was upheld on appeal since he was competent to stand trial and the overwhelming evidence showed that he forced his way into the elderly victim's apartment, viciously gagged her, causing her death.
|
|||||
| Carey v. Howard, 1040518, 1040532,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, April 28, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Limited liability company members had no personal standing to seek declaratory relief regarding alleged injury to the company's land, due to another's option to buy part of it, as they had no personal interest in the land, under Ala. Code § 10-12-23(b), nor could the option's exercise diminish their right, as cotenants, to possess and use the land.
|
|||||
| Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Pinkston, 1041327,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, April 28, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As key issue in employee's suit against insurer was whether workers' compensation limitation in policy operated as blanket exclusion, but court assumed that it did in certifying question for interlocutory appeal under Ala. R. App. P. 5, high court dismissed appeal to avoid deciding hypothetical question or exceeding scope of certified question.
|
|||||
| D.L.B. v. State, CR-04-2088,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, April 28, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When the trial court revoked defendant's probation without hearing testimony or receiving evidence, this violated both Ala. Code § 15-22-54 and due process. Defendant had not waived his right to a hearing under Ala. R. Crim. P. 27.5(b), as his counsel had made it clear that defendant wanted a formal hearing.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
