 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Slaton v. State, CR-00-1592,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, September 26, 2003, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Death penalty defendant seeking postconviction relief did not show counsel's ineffective assistance due to the statute for compensating counsel, conflict of interest, not seeking youthful offender status, or not objecting to prosecutorial misconduct.
|
|||||
| Smith v. State, CR-02-1440,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, September 26, 2003, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The summary dismissal of a habeas petition was remanded for an evidentiary hearing because the State did not refute an inmate's specific allegation that he was entitled to additional credit for time he spent in jail.
|
|||||
| State v. Nelson, CR-02-1293,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, September 26, 2003, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant, a juvenile, was ultimately charged with offense that denied him of his right to be treated as juvenile, he was still entitled to juvenile Miranda warnings, which required that he be informed of his right to speak with his family.
|
|||||
| Swift Lumber, Inc. v. Ramer, 2020297,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, September 26, 2003, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although neither claimant nor doctor testified directly that arthritis in knee was result of work-related injury, evidence was sufficient, as it was overall substance and effect, not use of magic words or phrases, that established medical causation.
|
|||||
| Travis v. Travis, 2020566,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, September 26, 2003, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Award of 25 percent of the former husband's future stock options to a former wife did not adequately consider her present need for periodic alimony. Thus, such was awarded. Further, it was not error to order each party to pay their own counsel fees.
|
|||||
| Univ. Fed. Credit Union v. Grayson, 1020042,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, September 26, 2003, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court abused its discretion in certifying a class of credit union members who paid a filing fee when making car loans as to fraud, fraudulent suppression, and breach of fiduciary duty claims, as the claims required individualized rulings.
|
|||||
| Vann v. State, CR-02-1070,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, September 26, 2003, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion for a mistrial was properly denied as defense counsel stated that he did not object to the trial court's decision not to question the jury venire further on an allegedly prejudicial statement made by a prospective juror.
|
|||||
| W.C. v. State Dep't of Human Res., 2020629,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, September 26, 2003, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Termination of a father's parental rights was not plainly or palpably wrong where the father had a criminal arrest record, had an impending criminal trial for assault with a deadly weapon, and had not supported the child, emotionally or financially.
|
|||||
| West v. State, CR-02-1219,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, September 26, 2003, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the limitations period for filing post-conviction petitions was reduced during the time that the limitations period was running on an inmate's petition, the rule was applied retroactively to include the inmate's petition.
|
|||||
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. |
