 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Busby v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-7527, 1785,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, February 1, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Despite having an international driving permit, defendant could not lawfully drive in Alaska, as his Alaska driver's license was revoked, and international treaty did not, by its terms, preclude enforcement of pre-existing revocation.
|
|||||
| Cizek v. Concerned Citizens of Eagle River Valley, Supreme Court No. S-9574, No. 5528,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, February 1, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly enjoined landowners' use of land as airstrip, as highly intermittent, unauthorized use of an airstrip by two individuals did not suffice to continue the nonconforming use.
|
|||||
| Lake & Peninsula Borough v. Norquest Seafoods, Inc., Supreme Court No. S-9679, No. 5530,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, February 1, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Settlement between fishers and fish processors for alleged conspiracy to set artificially low prices did not correspond to any particular sale, and settlement money could not be characterized as post-season adjustment to taxable sales.
|
|||||
| Lakosh v. Alaska Dep't of Envtl. Conservation, Supreme Court No. S-9619, No. 5531,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, February 1, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Agency regulations that did not require those filing oil spill contingency plans to use best available technology to meet performance standards were invalid as they did not comply with statutory mandate that best available technology be used.
|
|||||
| Rockstad v. Global Fin. & Inv. Co., Supreme Court No. S-9579, No. 5529,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, February 1, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Landlord was obligated to accept tenant's late payment, as tenant tendered payment prior to landlord giving notice that tenant was in default. As tenant was not in default, trial court erred in ordering it to pay landlord's litigation costs.
|
|||||
| State v. Superior Court, Court of Appeals No. A-7843, No. 1786,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, February 1, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Superior court had no statutory authority to order forfeiture of defendant's bond when he violated conditions of release under statutes in effect at that time. Thus, judgment was void, and person who paid bond was entitled to full restitution.
|
|||||
| Demers v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-7916, No. 1788,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, February 8, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not have authority to order defendant to pay restitution to employer injured by defendant's embezzlement but who did not sustain actual damages or loss, because the injury was cured by volunteer efforts.
|
|||||
| Dobberke v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-7561, No. 1787,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, February 8, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant failed to return rental car, and court failed to instruct that State had to prove that defendant's initial taking of car was trespassory, it constituted plain error, and defendant's first degree theft conviction was reversed.
|
|||||
| Municipality of Anchorage v. Suzuki, Supreme Court No. S-9657, No. 5533,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, February 8, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Municipality was statutorily required to obtain preliminary approval of replats showing easements involved in this case; plain meaning of a "boundary change" in replat approval statute encompassed changes in easement borders.
|
|||||
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. |
