 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Kazan v. Dough Boys, Inc., Supreme Court No. S-12830, No. 6338,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, February 20, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Larry W. v. Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Supreme Court No. S-13072, No. 1332,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, February 25, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Termination of father's parental rights was proper as, inter alia, trial court correctly concluded child had some type of brain impairment that required caregiver to provide fixed routine and clutter-free home, and finding child would suffer future damage under Indian Child Welfare Act was supported by evidence father was unlikely to alter conduct.
|
|||||
| Alaska Exch. Carriers Ass'n v. Regulatory Comm'n of Alaska, Supreme Court No. S-12696, No. 6339,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, February 27, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was proper to affirm an order of Regulatory Commission of Alaska, which denied the Alaska Exchange Carriers Association's (AECA) petition to intervene in a regulatory proceeding because the Commission had a reasonable basis for concluding that AECA could not intervene as a matter of right under Alaska Admin. Code tit. 3, ¿ 48.110(a).
|
|||||
| State v. Smart, Supreme Court No. S-12493, Supreme Court No. S-12543, No. 6340,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, February 27, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Retroactive application of Blakely was reversed because Blakely did not raise serious questions about accuracy of past sentences. Applying the Judd clear and convincing standard to question of full retroactivity, the Blakely reasonable doubt standard was not retroactive as to defendants whose sentences were final when Blakely was decided.
|
|||||
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. |
