 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Harris v. Ahtna, Inc., Supreme Court No. S-10960, No. 5867,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, February 11, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Corporate shareholder's offer to stockholder did not meet requirements of parties' put-and-call option as, in addition to stating price for stock at issue, it contained conditions requiring offeree to assume debt, and so lacked price equality. Stockholder was not bound by it, but his acceptance of price but not conditions did not form contract.
|
|||||
| Hurd v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8112, No. 1973,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, February 11, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a kidnapping conviction was reversed, defendant's double jeopardy rights were not violated when he was sentenced on remand for a dismissed assault conviction because it was technically merged into the kidnapping conviction for purposes of double jeopardy. Defendant waived the right to challenge errors relating to the assault in second appeal.
|
|||||
| Kenison v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8567, No. 1970,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, February 11, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence presented to a grand jury was sufficient to establish that defendant committed first-degree stalking, Alaska Stat. § 11.41.260, where there was a protective order in place, he made numerous hang-up calls to the victim's boyfriend, he paged the victim when she attended one of her boyfriend's musical performances, and he slashed her tire.
|
|||||
| Morgan v. Fortis Benefits Ins. Co., Supreme Court No. S-11000, No. 5868,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, February 11, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the only reasonable conclusion from the evidence was that the insured's accident was at least indirectly caused by her intoxication, summary judgment was properly granted to the insurer on the application of certain exclusions found in an accidental death and dismemberment insurance policy.
|
|||||
| Osborne v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8399, No. 1972,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, February 11, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant did not show his counsel provided ineffective assistance by not obtaining more definitive DNA testing of evidence, as this was a strategic decision, but he could have the trial court consider if he was entitled to post-conviction DNA testing, or if such relief was barred by Alaska Stat. § 12.72.020(b)(2) or was constitutionally required.
|
|||||
| Soundara v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8329, No. 1971,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, February 11, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Domestic violence case was remanded for a determination of whether a court erred in denying a challenge for cause because the juror withheld information concerning his family history of domestic violence and the court made no finding of whether the juror consciously withheld the information.
|
|||||
| Yang v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8516, No. 1969,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, February 11, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a refusing to submit to a breath test case, Alaska Stat. § 28.35.032, a court did not err in allowing the State to cross-examine defendant concerning an episode in which he took a breath test because it was relevant as it tended to show that he was familiar with the breath test and that he understood what the officer was asking him to do.
|
|||||
| Lampley v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8629, No. 4968,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, February 16, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's claims that his convictions for violating a restraining violated his right to free speech were not preserved for review in his application for post-conviction relief under Alaska Stat. § 12.72.020(a)(2), as the claims were not raised at trial or on his direct appeal of his convictions.
|
|||||
| Gov't Emples. Ins. Co. v. Graham-Gonzalez, Supreme Court Nos. S-10666/10755, Supreme Court No. S-10691, No. 5869,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, February 18, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insurers were entitled to summary judgment on uninsured and underinsured motorists (UIM) coverage claims, as Alaska Stat. § 21.89.020(c) did not require that application forms state the premiums that would be charged for each level of UIM coverage.
|
|||||
| McBath v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8570, No. 1974,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, February 18, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even if initial investigative stop was improper, methamphetamine found on defendant's person was not fruit of that stop. Police searched defendant only after they discovered pre-existing warrants for his arrest, and their search was conducted under authority of those warrants. Warrants sufficiently attenuated connection between stop and discovery.
|
|||||
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. |
