 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Walter Indus. v. McMillan, 1992333,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, May 25, 2001, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In light of lack of support for homebuilders' motion to compel arbitration, and home buyers' allegation that initials were forged on arbitration agreements' paragraph, trial court did not abuse discretion in denying motion.
|
|||||
| Ware v. State, CR-00-0909,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, May 25, 2001, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Record did not show source of pretrial confinement credit challenged by defendant, or method of calculation. State did not contradict facts defendant alleged, so hearing was required to determine if pretrial confinement was correctly calculated.
|
|||||
| Williams v. State, CR-00-0442,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, May 25, 2001, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Convictions for capital murder while committing or attempting first-degree robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery did not violate double jeopardy; appellant's statements after warrantless arrest at juvenile facility were admissible.
|
|||||
| Zinnerman v. Zinnerman, 2000198,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, May 25, 2001, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Husband only earned $ 9 per hour at his job. He could not afford alimony in gross of $ 9,500. Although husband's conduct was reprehensible, his estate was insufficient to satisfy alimony in gross award and it was reversed.
|
|||||
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. |
