 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| G.B. v. State Dep't of Human Res., 2050451,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Parents' appeal of orders entered by the juvenile court was dismissed as the juvenile court instructed a county department of human resources to perform a home study and reserved the issue of dependency until the home study was completed. The orders were pendente lite orders and could only be reviewed by petitions for a writ of mandamus.
|
|||||
| Gordon v. State, CR-05-0997,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 25, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The inmate's petition for postconviction relief was remanded to the trial court, as the trial court had failed to specifically address the inmate's claims despite the inmate's satisfaction of his burden under Ala. R. Crim. P. 32.6(b) to provide at the pleading phase a clear and specific statement of the grounds upon which relief was sought.
|
|||||
| Jefferson Smurfit Corp. v. Surtees, 2030987,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 25, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Jones v. State, CR-03-1504,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 25, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Statements were admissible as officer's statement about electric chair did not constitute threat that coerced defendant into confessing, defendant had already mentioned possibility of death penalty. Proof defendant intended to commit theft was sufficient to support capital murder conviction based on burglary, proof of actual theft was unnecessary.
|
|||||
| Lary v. Zymetx, Inc. , 2040330,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 25, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Lawson v. State, CR-05-0010,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 25, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's judgment of conviction for second-degree robbery was entered in error, as defendant had a right to be arraigned and was not arraigned before the jury found him guilty of that offense; his right to arraignment stemmed from Ala. Code § 15-15-20.1(c) and was also addressed in Ala. R. Crim. P. 14.1.
|
|||||
| Oliver v. City of Opelika, CR-05-0617,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 25, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence sufficiently supported submission of charge of menacing in violation of Opelika, Ala., Municipal Code of Ordinances § 19-353, to jury; police officer who stopped defendant's vehicle testified that defendant pointed his pistol at the officer during a traffic stop and the reasonable inference was that he intended to frighten the officer.
|
|||||
| Phase II, LLC v. City of Huntsville, 1050097,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, August 25, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A city council did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in denying an application for a liquor license for a nightclub because residents' concerns about increased traffic and neighborhood safety and police department testimony that the club's size would lead to increased calls for assistance provided sufficient evidence to support its decision.
|
|||||
| Robey v. State, CR-05-1346,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 25, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant's claims for postconviction relief did not implicate the jurisdiction of the trial court and were time-barred under Ala. R. Crim. P. 32.2(c), as they were filed almost 15 years after the time for filing an appeal had lapsed, summary denial of his postconviction relief petition was proper.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
