 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Dougherty v. City of Moundville, CR-02-2202,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, April 28, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although defendant, who was convicted of failure to wear a safety belt, argued that the trial court erred in taking judicial notice that the truck he was driving was manufactured with seat belts in compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, he failed to comply with Ala. R. App. P. 28(a)(10) in raising this issue.
|
|||||
| Edmond v. State, CR-04-2392,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, April 28, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because second-degree receiving stolen property was not a lesser-included offense of first-degree theft, the case had to be remanded for the trial court to determine whether defendant's Ala. R. Crim. P. 32 allegation that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to accept his guilty plea was true.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Buffalo Rock Co., 1041187,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, April 28, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since a hearing officer's decision in a unemployment compensation claim determining that a former employee had abandoned his job was final, further review was precluded, despite the former employee's voluntary dismissal of the appeal, thus, the employer was permitted to assert collateral estoppel as an affirmative defense in other litigation.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Hoover, Inc., 1040969,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, April 28, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: That a taxpayer's sales to Mississippi government entities took place in Alabama did not justify the discriminatory impact of Ala. Code § 40-23-4(a)(11), which exempted from sales tax only sales to Alabama government entities. Therefore, Alabama violated "dormant" Commerce Clause jurisprudence by its discriminatory sales tax exemption.
|
|||||
| Faust v. Knowles, 2040456,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, April 28, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's denial of parties' requests to modify physical custody of their children was reversed because trial court applied parental unfitness standard. Standard to be used when the parties had joint custody was the best-interest standard. The case was remanded with directions to reconsider the evidence in light of the best interest standard.
|
|||||
| Hammonds v. State, CR-04-1699,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, April 28, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Reckless murder conviction was reversed because it was inconsistent with jury's determination, on two other counts, that defendant acted recklessly; jury implicitly found that defendant did not act under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to human life and did not engage in conduct that created grave risk of death to another person.
|
|||||
| James v. State, CR-04-0395,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, April 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant's Ala. R. Crim. P. 32 petition challenging his conviction and death sentence was properly denied, as, among other findings, appellant's ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim was precluded pursuant to Ala. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a)(2), (a)(4), because it was raised and addressed at trial and on direct appeal.
|
|||||
| Kenney v. State, CR-05-0542,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, April 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While the trial court protected a probationer's procedural rights in conducting a revocation hearing, and an insufficient notice claim was not preserved, the matter was remanded for the court to clearly and unambiguously set forth its reasons for its revocation order and the evidence upon which it relied in doing so.
|
|||||
| Landrum v. State, CR-04-2314,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, April 28, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
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. |
