 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Evans v. State, 1070703,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, July 11, 2008, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because no application for rehearing was filed, Ala. R. App. P. 21(e)(3), requiring review by writ of certiorari, did not apply. Instead, the timeliness of the State's petition was governed by Rule 21(e)(2). As the petition was not filed with the Supreme Court of Alabama until well beyond the 14 days specified in Rule 21(e)(2), it was untimely.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Holbert, 1070456,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, July 11, 2008, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's DUI conviction in a municipal court did not count toward the total number of prior convictions necessary to constitute a felony DUI offense as defined in Ala. Code ¿ 32-5A-191(h), because the municipal DUI conviction was not a conviction for violating ¿ 32-5A-191, but merely a conviction for violating a municipal ordinance.
|
|||||
| Harris v. State, 1061198,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, July 11, 2008, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's act of appearing without counsel at his trial after being afforded a reasonable opportunity to retain counsel constituted an implied waiver of his right to counsel; therefore, appellate court should have looked to totality of circumstances to determine if defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to counsel.
|
|||||
| Holifield v. Smith, 2061204,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, July 11, 2008, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was proper to rule for landowners in their adverse possession action because credible evidence supported the finding that they were the owners of the west half located east of a fence line. However, the legal description of the location of the boundary was patently erroneous when it was determined by the fence line to the west of the west half.
|
|||||
| Moon v. Pillion, 1070124,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, July 11, 2008, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was properly granted on malicious-prosecution and abuse-of-process claims, where the neighbor had probable cause for swearing out criminal warrant based on property owner's theft of a post marking property line and property owner did not prove neighbor willfully made use of the criminal action for a purpose not justified by law.
|
|||||
| Pepper v. Bentley, 2070031,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, July 11, 2008, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was affirmed insofar as trial court refused to appoint guardian ad litem (GAL) for debtor under Ala. R. Civ. P. 17(c) without hearing as Due Process Clause did not require hearing before appointment of GAL was denied, and debtor's counsel did not request hearing or submit affidavit supporting appointment of GAL.
|
|||||
| Smith v. Gaston, 2061181,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, July 11, 2008, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Adjoining property owner in boundary dispute case was not entitled to jury trial pursuant to Ala. Code ¿ 6-6-543 on his counterclaim to quiet title because he could not show required peaceable possession under Ala. Code ¿ 6-6-540, but remand of case was still required, as trial court's inconsistent location of boundary line required clarification.
|
|||||
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. |
