 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ex parte Sumter County, 1041927,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, September 29, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a man committed suicide in his jail cell, county was not liable for the alleged negligence of sheriff and his deputies, as under Ala. Code § 14-6-1, sheriff, not county, was responsible for operating county jail, and complaint did not allege that the county breached its duty under Ala. Code § 11-14-10 to furnish and maintain jail facility.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Volvo Trucks N. Am., Inc., 1051074, 1051077,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, September 29, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In products liability suit against corporations, as sale in Montgomery County of truck with allegedly defective seat belt was the relevant "event or omission" under Ala. Code § 6-3-7(a)(1), not fatal accident in Butler County, court properly denied their Ala. Code § 6-3-21.1(a) motion to change venue to Butler County based on forum non conveniens.
|
|||||
| Fleming v. State, CR-05-0164,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, September 29, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: By definition, since defendant received jail sentences upon his guilty pleas, he was not convicted of minor misdemeanors, and Ala. R. Crim. P. 14.4(a) required a colloquy on record. There was no indication in record that a colloquy was held, and even if one was, the reporter stated that no transcript existed. The convictions were reversed.
|
|||||
| Fogarty v. Southworth, 1050207,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, September 29, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiffs' fraud claim was properly dismissed under Ala. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3) as time-barred, but as defendants did not make a prima facie showing that they were entitled to summary judgment on plaintiffs' other 13 claims, some of which had longer statutes of limitations than fraud claim, granting them summary judgment on those counts was error.
|
|||||
| Getz v. State, CR-05-0426,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, September 29, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ala. R. Crim. P. 32.9(d) required trial court to make specific findings of fact relating to each material issue of fact presented in post-conviction relief petition. Because a trial court denied defendant's petition without specific findings, case was remanded for trial court to enter new order setting out reasons for denying defendant's claims.
|
|||||
| Gilmore v. State, CR-05-0358,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, September 29, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's statements to store employees implying that he had a knife, and his attempt to escape, both coming after defendant had put items he had earlier stolen into a shopping court, did not supply the element of use of force or the threat of the imminent use of force necessary to make the taking of a robbery, Ala. Code § 13A-8-43(a)(2).
|
|||||
| Holloway v. State, CR-05-0185,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, September 29, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's denial of defendant's postconviction petition was affirmed as he was not entitled to any relief for his alleged jurisdictional claims, and he was unable to show that he was prejudiced by his counsel's performance. However, the cause was remanded to vacate defendant's conviction for a lesser included offense of intentional murder.
|
|||||
| Hous. Auth. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 1040885,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, September 29, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Housing authority's suit against an insurer based on a general contractor's allegedly defective work was time-barred under Ala. Code § 6-5-221 because the insurer, as surety for the general contractor, was entitled to assert the defenses available to the contractor, including § 6-5-221's two-year statute of limitations.
|
|||||
| Hurley v. State, CR-05-0595,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, September 29, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence of a prior rape conviction was improperly admitted in defendant's rape trial. Although there were some similarities between the two events in that defendant gained both victims' trust before attacking them, both were young, and both were raped, they were insufficient to show a common plan, scheme, or design under Ala. R. Evid. 404(b).
|
|||||
| Ingram v. State, CR-03-1707,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, September 29, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where appellant's petition for post-conviction relief, pursuant to Ala. R. Crim. P. 32, showed that, even assuming every allegation of the petition was true, it was without merit or was precluded, the trial court had authority to summarily dismiss that petition without requiring a response from the district attorney.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
