 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Campbell v. State, CR-02-0829,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 29, 2003, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant correctly argued trial court lacked jurisdiction to dismiss his postconviction petition because record did not show ruling on his in forma pauperis motion or his payment of filing fee; thus, remand was required for ruling on such matters.
|
|||||
| Cashion v. Torbert, 1020449,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, August 29, 2003, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment, on an executrix's independent action against a conservator for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, was proper, as said claims could have been asserted before the probate court.
|
|||||
| Chambers v. State, CR-02-1312,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 29, 2003, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court erred in considering the inmate's 1997 conviction, 1998 conviction, and parole revocation in one petition for postconviction relief. Challenges to the convictions and parole revocation should have been filed in separate petitions.
|
|||||
| Clemons v. State, CR-01-1355,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 29, 2003, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where U.S. Supreme Court released decision, holding that the execution of mentally retarded criminals was excessive punishment, claim of mental retardation was permitted on collateral review, as an exception to the general rule of non-retroactivity.
|
|||||
| Coleman v. State, CR-02-0683,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 29, 2003, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's claim that he was subjected to double jeopardy had merit. At least one of the felonies for which he was convicted had to be included in the felony-murder conviction and thus could not stand.
|
|||||
| Day v. State, CR-02-0351,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 29, 2003, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a habeas corpus proceeding in which an inmate argued that his sentence had been incorrectly calculated under two systems concerning credit for "good time," the trial court was to review a new affidavit from the Alabama Department of Corrections.
|
|||||
| Eldeco, Inc. v. Romines, 2020278,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 29, 2003, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee who experienced high level of stress on his job that resulted from mental injury, not physical injury, could not recover disability benefits under a nonaccidental-injury theory, even though the stress resulted in physical symptoms.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Mack, CR-02-0341,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 29, 2003, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State's argument that criminal defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claims raised in amended petition did not relate back to earlier petition was new information and could not be considered for first time in its rehearing application.
|
|||||
| Farmers Ins. Co. v. Price-Williams Assocs., 2020291,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 29, 2003, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where there was no consideration supporting an alleged agreement, an insurer had no interest in a damaged automobile, and received no other benefit from its being stored, the insurer was not obligated to pay the storage fees.
|
|||||
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. |
