 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Alfa Life Ins. Corp. v. Bonner, 2030948,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, October 28, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court erred by applying the "Slayer's Statute," Ala. Code § 43-8-253, in a case where an insured killed his paramour in a domestic dispute as the benefits payable under the insured's policy were received by the insured's son, not by the insured, the killer.
|
|||||
| C.D.P. v. D.P., 2040217,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, October 28, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's award of visitation under Ala. Code § 30-3-4.1 (amended 2003) to paternal grandparents was reversed, and the cause was remanded for the entry of a judgment consistent with the opinion as the grandparents failed to present clear and convincing evidence that the child suffered harm from being denied the chance to see the grandparents.
|
|||||
| D.D.C. v. State, CR-04-1460,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, October 28, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because harassment under Ala. Code § 13A-11-8(a)(1)a included an element that was not required to prove sexual harassment under Ala. Code §§ 13A-6-66(a)(3), 13A-6-60(3), pursuant to Ala. Code § 13A-1-9, it was not a lesser-included offense; thus, the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate defendant juvenile delinquent for harassment.
|
|||||
| Fountain v. State, CR-04-1716,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, October 28, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As the circuit court failed to advise a probationer of his right to counsel and determine whether he was entitled to the same, but he presented sufficient evidence of a colorable claim that he did not commit the violations alleged, or he had substantial reasons to mitigate the violations, a revocation order entered against him was reversed.
|
|||||
| Goodwin v. State, CR-04-1940,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, October 28, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Upon the State's concession, remand was ordered to address defendant's Ala. R. Crim. P. 32 claim that his sentence exceeded the maximum authorized by law because he was allegedly improperly sentenced as a habitual offender, especially where the indictment failed to allege that he had any prior convictions pursuant to the Controlled Substances Act.
|
|||||
| Hipsh v. Graham Creek Estates Owners Ass'n, 2040213,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, October 28, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Language in a restrictive covenant enforced by a homeowners' association prohibiting homeowners from parking motor homes, house trailers, and campers was broad enough to include a camper trailer/recreational vehicle owned by the homeowners. Thus, they were properly enjoined from keeping such on their property.
|
|||||
| J.C. v. State, CR-04-0496,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, October 28, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a juvenile defendant was charged as an adult under the provisions of Ala. Code § 12-15-34.1, rather than being transferred from a juvenile court to a circuit court pursuant to Ala. Code § 12-15-34(h), he could apply for youthful offender status under Ala. Code § 15-19-1.
|
|||||
| Latham v. Dep't of Corr., 1031810,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, October 28, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An inmate's purported class action against the Department of Corrections (DOC) was properly dismissed via summary judgment because the DOC was a state agency protected by sovereign immunity as to the claim for back wages for inmate labor and the legality of inmate labor was not addressed due to the inmate not being a proper class representative.
|
|||||
| Smith v. Smith, 2031182,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, October 28, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In the third appeal concerning the distribution of a divorced couple's assets, due to a wife's negligence, she was properly held accountable for taxes and penalties incurred by a transfer from the husband's retirement account, and the husband was entitled to an interest in the former marital home and a reimbursement for alimony amounts he paid.
|
|||||
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. |
