 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| State v. Odom, CR-01-1856,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, June 27, 2003, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to suppress was erroneously granted where, inter alia, purchase of known precursors for methamphetamine manufacture and observation of methamphetamine by-products in defendant's truck supported reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
|
|||||
| Thornton v. State, CR-02-0678,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, June 27, 2003, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant worked as part of HUD clean up crew and mistakenly entered the wrong house to perform his job of gutting the same and removing all the effects therein, he lacked the criminal intent to support a third-degree burglary conviction.
|
|||||
| Toliver v. State, CR-02-0665,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, June 27, 2003, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not have jurisdiction to accept defendant's guilty plea to second-degree robbery based on indictment charging him with first-degree robbery, where indictment did not include the fact that another person aided defendant in the robbery.
|
|||||
| Underwood v. State, CR-01-1812,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, June 27, 2003, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a question remained as to whether a motion for a new trial was continued by expressed agreement by the parties beyond the 60 days allowed by law, rather than the appeals court accepting the parties' implied consent, remand was ordered.
|
|||||
| Vaughn v. State, CR-01-1774,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, June 27, 2003, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where State paid defendant for his recommendation to buy certain property, and defendant did not disclose to State his ownership interest in that property, evidence was held sufficient to convict him of failing to disclose a conflict of interest.
|
|||||
| Verzone v. State, CR-01-0698,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, June 27, 2003, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Whisenant v. Whisenant, 2020506,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, June 27, 2003, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Wilkerson v. Wilkerson, 2020467,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, June 27, 2003, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a trial court's judgment found a father in contempt for failure to pay child support, but did not state the amount of arrearage that he owed the mother, all of the issues were not fully adjudicated and the order was not final or appealable.
|
|||||
| Wolff Motor Co. v. White, 1011845,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, June 27, 2003, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in denying motion to compel arbitration under arbitration clause in contract for sale of a car-hauler because the transaction was one that affected interstate commerce and arbitration was mandated by the Federal Arbitration Act.
|
|||||
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. |
