 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Brandal v. State, Supreme Court No. S-11770, No. 5982,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, February 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Despite inexcusable 22 year delay in denying fisherman's application for limited entry permit, as Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission's (CFEC) delay did not prejudice him, delay did not constitute a violation of his right to due process; he had ample notice his claim was likely to be rejected and he had continued fishing on a temporary permit.
|
|||||
| Price v. Eastham, Supreme Court No. S-11647, No. 5983,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, February 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In determining the scope of the public prescriptive easement on the landowner's property, the trial court failed to make specific factual findings under Alaska R. Civ. P. 52(a) regarding the dates of the prescriptive period, the original purpose and use of the easement, any changes in the use of the easement, and the reasonableness of that change.
|
|||||
| State v. Garrison, Court of Appeals No. A-8851, No. 2030,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, February 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant admitted that he removed a handgun from the scene of a homicide, the superior court erred by suppressing his statement; no adversary proceedings had commenced, he was not subject to custodial interrogation, and his will was not overborne by threats. Defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination was not violated.
|
|||||
| State v. Stafford, Court of Appeals Nos. A-8872/A-8888, No. 2031,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, February 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Courts determining a defendant's mandatory minimum sentence based on the definition of "previously convicted" in Alaska Stat. § 28.35.030 with regard to prior DUI convictions were directed to apply the statute in effect on the date a defendant was sentenced.
|
|||||
| Olson v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8776, No. 5038,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, February 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Police had a lawful reason to contact defendant in carrying out their community-caretaker role, nothing in the implied consent statute, Alaska Stat. § 28.30.032, required the police to inform an arrestee of the penalty for refusal, and Blakely was not implicated where a trial judge aggravated a presumptive sentence based on prior convictions.
|
|||||
| Soundara v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8329, No. 5039,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, February 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Polar Supply Co., Inc. v. Steelmaster Indus., Inc., Supreme Court No. S-11664,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, February 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Serradell v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8768, No. 2032,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, February 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an application for post-conviction relief, trial court erred in dismissing the application, pursuant to Alaska R. Crim. P. 35.1, because trial court did not advise applicant that it was treating the State's answer and opposition as a motion to dismiss and trial court did not advise applicant that it was going to take action sua sponte.
|
|||||
| Simpson v. Murkowski, Supreme Court Nos. S-11697/S-11777,n1 No. 5984 1 Although these cases were filed as separate appeals, we consolidated them for oral argument and are now consolidating them for purposes of decision.,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, February 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In senior citizens' challenge to Governor's veto of longevity bonus, trial court did not err in granting State's motion for summary judgment because senior citizens failed to show promissory estoppel; they also failed to show violation of Contracts Clause or legal entitlement under Alaska Stat. § 47.45.010 et seq.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
