 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Archbold v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9884, No. 5446,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, March 4, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judge did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress. Record showed that police officer, who was in plainclothes and whose weapon was not visible, showed his police identification and asked if he could enter defendant's hotel room to chat. Defendant replied, "Sure, dude," opened the door more fully, and let officer into the room.
|
|||||
| Blasio v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9530, No. 5442,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, March 4, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the prosecutor used a peremptory challenge to strike the only Hispanic juror because he had long hair and had previously served on a jury that was unable to reach a verdict, the record supported the judge's decision that the State provided a nondiscriminatory reason for the strike. There was no Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection violation.
|
|||||
| Blondin v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9699, No. 5443,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, March 4, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Two convictions under former Alaska Stat. § 08.54.720(a)(3) for illegally guiding two nonresident aliens on a hunt at the same time at the same location were merged because the statute was ambiguous as to the meaning of "guide a hunt," and the court interpreted the statute in favor of defendant to limit the scope of criminal liability.
|
|||||
| Cassou v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9807, No. 5444,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, March 4, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In support of his claim that none of the prospective jurors in his case was Alaska Native, defendant merely cited to the jury selection list and asserted that none of the prospective jurors "appeared" to be Alaska Native; this was insufficient evidence to support defendant's claim that Alaska Natives were under-represented on his venire.
|
|||||
| Dep't of Revenue, Child Support Servs. Div. ex rel. Peterson v. Kosto, Supreme Court No. S-13044, No. 1333,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, March 4, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court abused its discretion under Alaska R. Civ. P. 90.3(h)(2) by failing to make a child support modification order effective the date the father was served with the petition and by denying post-majority support for the parties' daughter under Alaska Stat. § 25.24.170, since it did not conclude that it was an exceptional case.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. Johnson, Supreme Court No. S-12891, No. 1335,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, March 4, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a divorce case, the trial court erred by failing to correct the double-counting of a truck, which inflated the husband's share of the equitable division of the marital estate, as well as by failing to set forth any findings that it considered certain credits the husband sought for post-separation payments made to maintain marital property.
|
|||||
| McCrea v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-10198, No. 5445,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, March 4, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Poirot v. State, Supreme Court No. S-12812, No. 1334,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, March 4, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a driver sought, under Alaska Stat. § 28.15.181(f), to have his driver's license revocation set aside, due to being acquitted of underlying criminal charges, it was not manifestly unjust to allow the revocation to stand because (1) he did not challenge it for sixteen years, and (2) he was not completely prohibited from driving a motor vehicle.
|
|||||
| Bridges v. Banner Health, Supreme Court No. S-12559,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, March 5, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
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. |
