 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Lonis v. State, Court of Appeals Nos. A-6974, A-7409, No. 1661,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, February 18, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred when it ordered forfeiture of defendant's bail money for reasons other than non-appearance.
|
|||||
| Mullin v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-7053, No. 1663,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, February 18, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant's petition for post-conviction relief was reinstated since, for statute of limitations purposes, the relevant event was the filing of the petition itself even if it was not accompanied by the filing fee.
|
|||||
| Napoka v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-6790, No. 1662,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, February 18, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence that defendant and victim had repeatedly engaged in consensual sex in the past was relevant and not barred by rape shield statute. Thus, defendant's conviction for sexual assault was reversed and he was granted a new trial.
|
|||||
| O'Callaghan v. Rue, Supreme Court Nos. S-8234/S-8274, No. 5240,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, February 18, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Fish and game commissioner was authorized to promulgate regulation permitting hatchery roe stripping that was consistent with salmon waste law and did not conflict with any constitutional or statutory provisions.
|
|||||
| Wescott v. State, Supreme Court No. S-8688, No. 5241,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, February 18, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court found department of labor did not adequately consider risk to appellant's health as a factor in determining that his work was suitable when it disqualified him from receiving benefits for his first six weeks of unemployment.
|
|||||
| Barrett v. Era Aviation, Inc., Supreme Court No. S-8097, No. 5242,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, February 25, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's failure to inform jury to apply common carrier standard of care created significant risk that jury found for defendant because it applied a lower standard of care than that required of a common carrier.
|
|||||
| Ward v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-6842, No. 1664,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, February 25, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court did not err by ending jury selection in small town, since most of the potential jurors were biased in favor of either the appellant, the victim, or both; also, it was not error to reject superfluous jury instructions.
|
|||||
| Cofey v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-7146, No. 4190,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, March 1, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A conviction was proper where the trial court's jury instruction error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, cross-examination was not objected to, and there was no abuse of discretion in defendant's sentencing.
|
|||||
| Strong v. Municipality of Anchorage, Court of Appeals No. A-7344, No. 4191,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, March 1, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An application to dismiss charges of driving without a license was properly denied where the constitutional right to travel did not restrict the municipality's authority to require a valid state operator's license.
|
|||||
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. |
