 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ex parte V.S., 1040374,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, June 24, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As a trial court erred in granting an inmate's second Ala. R. Crim. P. 32 petition, which requested leave to file an out-of-time appeal from the order denying his first Rule 32 petition (which he claimed he had not received), the court of appeals lacked subject matter jurisdiction when it considered and denied the out-of-time appeal.
|
|||||
| Fitts v. AmSouth Bank, 1040466,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, June 24, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where plaintiffs did not sue a bank until two years after they learned of the bank's transfer of funds from an account, as plaintiffs' common-law claims against the bank based on the transfer were displaced by Article 4A of the Alabama Commercial Code, those claims were barred by Article 4A's repose statute, Ala. Code ¿ 7-4A-505.
|
|||||
| Halford v. Alamo Rent-A-Car, LLC, 1031865,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, June 24, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where complaint alleged defendants negligently entrusted rental car to driver whose license had been suspended, defendants were properly granted summary judgment as evidence that the driver's license had been suspended for failure to disprove, or to pay the fine for, nonmoving violation was not substantial evidence of her incompetence as a driver.
|
|||||
| Hemrick v. State, CR-04-0671,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, June 24, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the execution of defendant's sentence was invalid, and defendant sufficiently stated a prima facie double jeopardy violation based on her convictions of both first- and second-degree assault, remand was ordered for an evidentiary hearing on the latter claim, and a resentencing on the former.
|
|||||
| Huggins v. Goldstein, 2030906,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, June 24, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although discovery process proved patient would not be able to separate remembered work performed by dentist from forgotten work performed by another dentist, that did not render patient's conduct devoid of probable cause ab initio; thus, patient was not liable for malicious prosecution as he had probable cause to initiate claim when filed.
|
|||||
| Irvin v. State, CR-01-2229,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, June 24, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sufficient evidence supported defendant's capital murder conviction pursuant to Ala. Code ¿ 13A-5-40. During questioning about another murder defendant told officials that he and an accomplice killed the victim by shooting him while he sat behind the wheel of his automobile, and defendant took them to where they had dumped the victim's body.
|
|||||
| Jackson v. City of Auburn, 2031010,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, June 24, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As determined by examining the scope of the prescriptive easement held by a power utility on a pole located on the landowners' property, apportionment of the prescriptive easement to another utility was erroneous and summary judgment on the issue was not warranted in a trespass action.
|
|||||
| King v. State, CR-03-1704,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, June 24, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Admission of hearsay statements from victim was not error, as any limitation on right to cross-examine was result of counsel's decisions and not result of any action by trial court or prosecutor. Testimony of forensic investigator and interviewer, which contained more details than victim's testimony, was admissible under Ala. Code ¿¿¿15-25-31, -32.
|
|||||
| Mack v. State, CR-04-1060,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, June 24, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in concluding that defendant did not fall within the category of inmates eligible to file for reconsideration of their sentences under the amended provisions of Ala. Code ¿¿ 13A-5-9 and 13A-5-9.1. Defendant's 1999 and 2000 sentences of life imprisonment for Class B felonies fell within the eligible category.
|
|||||
| Marquette v. State, CR-04-0062,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, June 24, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in summarily denying defendant relief regarding claims that the State breached a plea agreement and that his counsel was ineffective in failing to bring the alleged breach to the court's attention by declining to address the voluntariness of the plea. But, it properly denied defendant's jurisdiction claim as insufficiently pled.
|
|||||
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. |
