 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Alaska Constr. & Eng'g, Inc. v. Balzer Pac. Equip. Co., Supreme Court No. S-11168/S-11225, No. 5981,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, January 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where lessor of equipment and lessee did not dispute ownership after lessor repossessed the equipment, lessor could not collect its trial costs under repossession section of lease. Lessor could not recover attorney's fees for trial because its trial costs included fees for claims and defenses not incurred while securing transport costs.
|
|||||
| Alaska Constr. Equip., Inc. v. Star Trucking, Inc., Supreme Court No. S-11555, No. 5980,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, January 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The superior court erred by granting summary judgment for a lessor on a claim for damages for a leased truck that was destroyed by the lessee. Genuine issues of material fact remained as to whether the lessor was entitled to recover loss of use damages for the destruction of the truck.
|
|||||
| Carlson v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8498, No. 2029,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, January 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial judge did not err in sentencing defendant to 40 years for second-degree murder under § 11.41.110(a)(2) because Apprendi did not require jury to decide whether sentence should exceed Page benchmark range, and defendant's prior history and repeated perjury were sufficient reasons to exceed range.
|
|||||
| Case v. Municipality of Anchorage, Court of Appeals No. A-9082, No. 2028,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, January 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not err in ruling that defendant was required to assert a meritorious defense to a speeding charge in order to set aside a default judgment under Alaska Dist. Ct. R. Crim. P. 8(i) because defendant failed to cite relevant case law to support his claim that the requirement violated his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.
|
|||||
| Cole v. State Farm Ins. Co., Supreme Court No. S-11460, No. 5978,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, January 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where injured person was cohabiting with insured (his former wife), Alaska Supreme Court rejected argument that he was entitled to coverage. Policy unambiguously defined spouse to have meant legally married husband or wife. In that respect, denial of coverage on basis of marital status did not constitute discrimination per Alaska Human Rights Act.
|
|||||
| In re Ford, Supreme Court No. S-11504, No. 5979,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, January 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney's 90-day suspension for knowingly disobeying a court order was proper because although attorney believed Rule 1.15 required him to do so, Rule 3.4(c) required him to follow the court order and attorney could have sought a stay if he was caught between obligations to his client and obligations to the trial court.
|
|||||
| Marsingill v. O'Malley, Supreme Court No. S-11578, No. 5977,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, January 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court properly instructed a jury that the doctor had a duty to disclose information, Alaska Stat. § 09.55.556, that would be material to a reasonable patient, and "material information" was defined as information which the surgeon knew or should have known would be regarded as significant by a reasonable person in the patient's position.
|
|||||
| McMullen v. Bell, Supreme Court No. S-11567, No. 5976,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, January 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State employee (not a teacher and hired in 1969) did not actually acquire a right to have his cashed-in leave included as part of his compensation under former Alaska Stat. § 39.35.680(4). Thus, he also had no right that could have been impaired when legislature, per amendment, specifically excluded cashed-in leave from definition of compensation.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
