 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. v. State, Supreme Court No. S-11131, No. 5864,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, January 28, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Oil corporations were properly denied discovery royalty rate because natural resources commissioner's method of determining "geologic structure" did not conflict with definition set out in regulations in place when lease was signed with state.
|
|||||
| McComas v. Kirn, Supreme Court No. S-11089, No. 5865,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, January 28, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sending threatening mail was a domestic violence crime against an ex-wife allowing a long-term domestic violence protective order; acts supporting order were not too remote in time, and denial of an earlier protective order request did not bar order.
|
|||||
| Miller v. Miller, Supreme Court No. S-11122, No. 5863,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, January 28, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Decisions to divide the primary home and an investment account as marital property were affirmed because there was evidence that the gifts initially given to the husband had transmuted to marital property through the parties' conduct in the marriage.
|
|||||
| Nease v. State, No. 1967,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, January 28, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even if the court adopted the doctrine of pretext stops and searches, defendant would not be entitled to suppression of the intoxication evidence against him because the officer had probable cause to stop defendant for the defective tail light.
|
|||||
| State v. Savo, Court of Appeals No. A-8583, No. 4967,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, February 2, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In appellee's petition for post-conviction relief, trial judge erred in ruling that counsel was ineffective in rape trial because questioning why counsel did not cross-examine victim on certain key issues amounted to second guessing strategy.
|
|||||
| Wedman v. Wedman, Supreme Court No. S-11276, No. 1200,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, February 2, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Father's due process rights were not violated by modifying child support award when neither party filed motion to modify because father was aware that support order would be modified and had opportunity to produce evidence.
|
|||||
| McGrew v. State, Supreme Court No. S-10699, No. 5866,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, February 4, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an action against the State for intentional infliction of emotional distress relating to a dependency proceeding, the claim was erroneously dismissed on the pleadings because there was no opportunity to consider the evidence.
|
|||||
| Sergie v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8190, No. 1968,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, February 4, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence supported defendant's attempted first-degree sexual assault conviction; defendant knocked his wife to the floor, removed her shirt and bra, and then tried to remove her pants, while she tried to keep him from removing her pants.
|
|||||
| Nevitt v. Provost, Supreme Court No. S-11339, No. 1201,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, February 9, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Husband's appeal from a decision dismissing domestic violence case brought by husband against wife and issuing interim custody order in separation action granting wife custody of parties' daughter was dismissed where interim order superseded any prior grant of custody contained in ex parte protective order, and interim order was not final judgment.
|
|||||
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. |
