| |
| | [No title] |
 | | Hayes and Carter were each indicted on multiple counts of first-degree theft of property, one count of second-degree theft of property, and one count alleging that they had intimidated a witness, § 13A-10-124, Ala. |
 | | Hayes argued that DQ was not qualified to do business in Alabama at the time of the contract, and, therefore, that under Alabama's door-closing statute, the contract and all other agreements on which DQ bases its theories of recovery are void. |
 | | Roden, Hayes, and Carter argue that DQ was hired to conduct a survey and to make a presentation to some focus groups in order to gauge potential juror attitudes. |
| www.wallacejordan.com /decisions/Opinions2003/1011391.htm (3508 words) |
|