 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Crittell v. Bingo, Supreme Court No. S-10642, No. 5767,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, January 2, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Will advocated by beneficiaries was conceived in and advanced by fraud; thus, trial court properly applied the concept of vexatious and bad faith conduct in enhancing attorney's fee award and granted interested parties' motion for attorney's fees.
|
|||||
| Dykstra v. Municipality of Anchorage, Supreme Court No. S-10512, No. 5766,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, January 2, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Property owner's collection of cars exceeded scope of a permissible accessory use of his property. But, owner was not provided with notice of what action municipality expected him to take to avoid sanctions for non-compliance with enforcement order.
|
|||||
| Colette v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8475, No. 4811,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, January 7, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence of his intoxication and his refusal to submit to a chemical test, where the police had not violated defendant's right to contact his attorney immediately after his arrest.
|
|||||
| Roach v. Caudle, Supreme Court No. S-10657, No. 1154,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, January 7, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an attorney malpractice suit, the superior court properly enforced a settlement agreement that was negotiated on the eve of trial; the evidence indicated a meeting of minds between the parties and that the client had agreed to the terms.
|
|||||
| Hertz v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8422, No. 1911,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, January 9, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Complaints about prison conditions and retaliation seeking post conviction relief were not proper in such a post conviction relief application and only state supreme court could hear an appeal from department of corrections decisions in such matters.
|
|||||
| Raad v. Alaska State Comm'n for Human Rights, Supreme Court No. S-10718, No. 5769,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, January 9, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Teacher, who claimed national origin and religion-based discrimination, established a prima facie case. Hearing examiner's findings leading to conclusion that school district's reasons were not pretextual were not unsupported.
|
|||||
| Smith v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8510, No. 1912,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, January 9, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because Alaska law focused on dates of prior convictions, while Arkansas law focused on dates of conduct, defendant's Arkansas conviction for felony DWI could not be deemed prior felony conviction for presumptive sentencing purposes.
|
|||||
| State Legislative Council v. Knowles, Supreme Court No. S-10344, No. 5768,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, January 9, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A Senate bill was not subject to the governor's enhanced veto power because it was not an appropriation, which was reserved exclusively for monetary asset transfers and not the transfer of land and income derived therefrom, the bill's subject.
|
|||||
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. |
