 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Alto v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-7961, No. 1856,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, February 14, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was properly convicted of escape in the second degree. Defendant had escaped from the custody of a psychiatric institute where he was committed after being found not guilty by reason of insanity of murder.
|
|||||
| Bertilson v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8032, No. 1851,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, February 14, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was entitled to a new trial on the charge of felony driving while intoxicated because he was prevented from presenting evidence that his blood alcohol content was within the legal limits when he was driving.
|
|||||
| Brigman v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8044, No. 1854,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, February 14, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Department of fish and game lawfully defined permit hunt areas by internal decision, as it had not been obliged to follow notice and hearing procedures; defendant was properly convicted of transporting game taken in violation of hunting regulations.
|
|||||
| Coles v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8195, No. 1855,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, February 14, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err when it sentenced defendant, who was convicted of felony driving while intoxicated, to the maximum sentence of five years in prison; the trial court reasonably concluded that defendant was a continuing danger to the public.
|
|||||
| Gilbert v. Nina Plaza Condo Ass'n, Supreme Court No. S-10000, No. 5666, Supreme Court No. S-10237,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, February 14, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a superior court failed to inform a pro se litigant of her options when an opposing party failed to provide requested discovery, it was an abuse of discretion to dismiss her case.
|
|||||
| Hamrick v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8041, No. 1852,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, February 14, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the Alaska DOC failed to inform defendant that his failure to complete a timely application for a sexual offender program violated the terms of his probation, defendant's probation was improperly revoked when his application was denied.
|
|||||
| State v. Combs, Court of Appeals No. A-8115, N0. 1857,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, February 14, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order requiring the DOC to house defendant in a separate facility from another inmate was reversed because the sentencing court lacked jurisdiction to make such an order and collateral estoppel did not prevent the DOC from challenging the order.
|
|||||
| Waters v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-7600, No. 1853,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, February 14, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction was affirmed because his confession was voluntary, the evidentiary ruling was proper, the sentence imposed was not excessive, and the sentence did not require reversal because defendant was a serious threat to public safety.
|
|||||
| Zaverl v. Hanley, Supreme Court No. S-9312, No. 5665,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, February 14, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in allowing the surgeon in a medical malpractice suit to testify as to matters that he refused to answer in his deposition. Whether this error was harmless, the appellate court could not say, so the matter was remanded.
|
|||||
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. |
