 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Palmer v. State, CR-00-1973,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, May 31, 2002, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant's claim that he was entitled to an out-of-time appeal, as he did not receive the order denying his petition for postconviction relief until after the 42-day period for filing a notice of appeal had passed, was meritorious on its face.
|
|||||
| River Conservancy Co. v. Gulf States Paper Corp., 1001725,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, May 31, 2002, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Proposal under timber purchase agreement allowed paper company wide discretion in determining how it could cut and harvest timber purchased, adequately restocking land with sufficient seed trees, benefitting conservationist.
|
|||||
| Robinson v. State, CR-01-0986,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, May 31, 2002, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Postconviction relief court did not have authority to reconsider defendant's life sentence because deadline set by executive order for developing procedures to implement change to statute had not arrived and procedures had not been adopted.
|
|||||
| Safeco Ins. Cos. v. Blackmon, 2000452,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, May 31, 2002, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in finding that the employee suffered physical impairment, where he was not exposed to greater risk as claims adjuster than general population. Further, his income was greater after the incident complained of than before.
|
|||||
| Smith v. Smith, 2001040,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, May 31, 2002, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in ordering husband to provide insurance to children beyond age of majority, as such coverage was conditioned upon insurer's agreement, and in awarding retirement benefits to wife, where parties had not been married 10 years.
|
|||||
| Spooney v. State, CR-00-1493,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, May 31, 2002, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since defendant distributed a controlled substance within at least three miles of a public school, application of statutory five-year school-zone sentencing enhancement was mandatory; case was remanded to circuit court to apply the enhancement.
|
|||||
| Sykes v. State, CR-01-0711,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, May 31, 2002, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The order did not have to address whether confinement was the best option upon revocation of probation. However, because the order stated only that the trial court relied on "testimony and other evidence," it was insufficient.
|
|||||
| T.D. v. A.L., 2000483,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, May 31, 2002, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Juvenile court erred in granting biological mother visitation rights, against the rights of the adoptive parents, where the child had not been adjudicated dependent and mother could not claim benefits of visitation statute.
|
|||||
| Tomlin v. State, CR-98-2126,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, May 31, 2002, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant, who was involved in the murder of two people during a single act, did not allege the prosecutor intentionally invited reversal at previous trials, and the record did not support the allegation. Defendant's death penalty was upheld.
|
|||||
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. |
