 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Barber v. State, CR-03-0737,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, May 27, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a capital murder appeal, the trial court properly admitted a police latent print examiner's print identification testimony as print identification constituted specialized knowledge that could be helpful to the jury in understanding or determining the facts. Therefore, Ala. R. Evid. 702 governed the admissibility of the examiner's testimony.
|
|||||
| Birdsong v. State, CR-04-0550,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, May 27, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a robbery charge formed the basis for both a first-degree robbery and an underlying capital murder charge as a lesser-included offense, defendant's convictions for both violated his double jeopardy rights. Thus, the circuit court erroneously denied him postconviction relief as to this claim.
|
|||||
| Castillo v. State, CR-04-0824,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, May 27, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Convictions on six counts of burglary-murder, alternatively charged to prove a single offense, violated defendant's double jeopardy rights, even if he had received a single sentence for the same. Moreover, absent evidence in the record that defendant was represented by counsel at arraignment, remand was ordered.
|
|||||
| Duke v. State, CR-98-1218,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, May 27, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant's case was pending on certiorari to the United States Supreme Court when the decision in Roper was released, defendant's death sentence violated U.S. Const. amend. VIII and XIV because he was under the age of 18 at the time the Ala. Code ¿ 13A-5-40(a)(10) capital murders were committed.
|
|||||
| Duncan v. State, CR-03-1634,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, May 27, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Ex parte Hurst, 1040728,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, May 27, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a TRO failed to show sufficient reason as to why the return of household furnishings the tenants had in their possession, and were using, had to be done within 72 hours of the time said order was issued to avoid the immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage, in addition to lacking sufficient notice, said TRO was vacated.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Quinlan, 1040108,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, May 27, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an affidavit was drawn from a pleading that did not take advantage of the liberal pleading requirements permitting very general pleadings or pleadings on information and belief, it contained sufficient facts on firsthand knowledge and should have been considered in opposition to a motion for a summary judgment.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Regions Bank, 1031838,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, May 27, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a party failed to offer any evidence of an opposing party's attorney's conflict of interest on a substantially related matter to the present litigation but that party's conflict of interest allegations were mere generalities, vacation of an order disqualifying the opposing party's counsel was warranted.
|
|||||
| Fox Alarm Co. v. Wadsworth, 1020994, 1021031,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, May 27, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alarm company was properly denied JML as (1) it failed to preserve any issue as to its duty to its customer, and even if it did, the contract exculpated it; (2) a clause limiting its damages was valid; and (3) expert testimony was properly admitted on the topic of burglary investigation. Further, the customer's wantonness claim was unsupported.
|
|||||
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. |
