 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Apicella v. State, CR-04-0761,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, May 26, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his postconviction claim that the trial court failed to conduct an individualized sentencing determination in rejecting the jury's life in prison recommendation, and said claim was not barred, as it surfaced four years after he was convicted, and after his codefendants had been sentenced to death.
|
|||||
| B.M.J. v. State, CR-04-1935,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, May 26, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because no evidence was presented at defendant's delinquency hearing or the restitution hearing that his criminal activity was the proximate cause of the damage, either directly or indirectly, to the stolen vehicle, the juvenile court improperly ordered defendant to pay restitution for the damage under Ala. Code § 15-18-65.
|
|||||
| Brooks v. State, CR-05-0119,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, May 26, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions for felony murder and first-degree robbery were based on the same conduct and violated double-jeopardy principles; the jury instructions clearly indicated that the jury had to find the robbery in order to return a guilty verdict as to the victim's death. Summary denial of his Ala. R. Crim. P. 32 petition was improper.
|
|||||
| Brown v. Greater Mobile-Washington County Mental Health-Mental Retardation Bd., Inc., 1050003,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, May 26, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a board failed to present sufficient proof that it was a State agency entitled to sovereign immunity under Ala. Const. art. I, § 14, and as a result, its house manager did not qualify as a State agent, summary judgment entered in favor of the board and the manager in a wrongful death action filed against them was reversed.
|
|||||
| Burge v. Hayes, 2040829,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, May 26, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The father's notice of appeal was not filed within 42 days of the denial of the postjudgment motion as required by Ala. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The postjudgment motion was denied by operation of law under Ala. R. Civ. P. 59.1 because the parties did not extend the time for consideration of the motion, since the mother's consent was not obtained.
|
|||||
| Cates v. Cates, 2040511,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, May 26, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Mother's appeal from an order denying her request to close her guardianship in which her children acted as her guardians was dismissed, as the order appealed from determined fewer than all the claims presented, and was thus, not a final appealable judgment.
|
|||||
| Crayton v. State, CR-04-2515,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, May 26, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the charges against defendant were based on the same underlying theft, pursuant to Ala. Code § 13A-1-9(a), his conviction for third-degree theft was a lesser-included offense of the first-degree robbery conviction; therefore, defendant's convictions violated the principles of double jeopardy in Ala. Code § 13A-1-8(b)(1).
|
|||||
| D.B. v. M.A., 2050034, 2050277,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, May 26, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where child was removed from Nebraska by adoptive couple without father's consent, appellate court concluded that Nebraska had jurisdiction to determine the child's custody, the Nebraska judgment at issue was properly registered and was enforceable in Alabama, and the child should be returned to the father by whatever means are practicable.
|
|||||
| Edwards v. City of Fairhope, CR-04-1966,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, May 26, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When an officer pursued a DUI defendant from one city in Alabama to a second city in Alabama, and the actions that led to a charge of resisting arrest all occurred in the second city, the first city's municipal court had no jurisdiction over the resisting arrest charge. Accordingly, defendant's resisting arrest conviction was void.
|
|||||
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. |
