 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Danner v. State, CR-07-0485,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 29, 2008, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the indictment against defendant did not allege a mental state, and because the trial court did not explain to the jury how the mental states in Ala. Code § 13A-2-2(2)-(4) related to the offense of vehicular homicide, its instructions regarding the offense were inadequate to amend the indictment to charge an appropriate mental state.
|
|||||
| Ex parte C&D Logging, 2070159, 2070198,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 29, 2008, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An employer's appeal of an order entered in favor of an employee in his action to recover workers' compensation benefits was dismissed because the order was not a final judgment capable of supporting an appeal. It did not contain a determination or calculation of the specific amount of workers' compensation benefits to be awarded to the employee.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Griffin, 1070727,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, August 29, 2008, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Co-worker, substituted for fictitiously named defendant, sought mandamus after denial of summary judgment motion, arguing worker's Ala. Code § 25-5-11(c) claim was time-barred as relation-back principles did not apply. Writ was denied as he did not present undisputed evidence that worker failed to exercise due diligence in substituting him.
|
|||||
| Floyd v. State, CR-05-0935,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 29, 2008, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction for capital murder during a robbery, a violation of Ala. Code § 13A-5-40(a)(4), was supported by sufficient evidence; defendant's confession, along with other evidence, established the corpus delicti. Imposition of the death penalty was appropriate because all of the Ala. Code § 13A-5-53 factors had been considered and satisfied.
|
|||||
| Frederick v. Wallis, 2060682,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 29, 2008, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment as matter of law for operator on wantonness claim was affirmed as there was substantial evidence under Ala. Code § 12-21-12 that operator turned into lane once there was gap in traffic, although his vision was impaired. Potential of injury to operator was as real as that to driver or passenger, and his judgment was not impaired.
|
|||||
| Greenwood v. Greenwood, 2070452,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 29, 2008, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A mother's appeal of a judgment modifying physical custody of the parties' son was dismissed, as the trial court's failure to dispose of the father's contempt petitions rendered the trial court's judgment nonfinal.
|
|||||
| Henderson v. State, CR-05-2222,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 29, 2008, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the circuit court did not indicate any deficiencies in defendant's allegations or issue written findings of fact as to the merits, or lack thereof, of defendant's claims, and because defendant's specific assertions in his motion were supported with affidavits and documentary evidence, he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his motion.
|
|||||
| Hodges v. State, CR-04-1226,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 29, 2008, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court failed to meet the appellate court's direction on remand requiring trial court under Ala. R. Crim. P. 32.9(d) to make specific findings of fact relating to trial counsel's investigation and preparation for sentencing phase of petitioner's capital murder trial at which death penalty was imposed; thus, another remand of case was required.
|
|||||
| Hoegh v. Burton, 2070278,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 29, 2008, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a circuit court's judgment reserved jurisdiction over pending matters, and because the record did not contain an Ala. R. Civ. P. 54(b) certification, pursuant to Ala. Code § 12-22-2, the judgment was not final and would not support an appeal.
|
|||||
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. |
