 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Allen v. Alaska Oil & Gas Conservation Comm'n, Supreme Court No. S-8690, No. 5272,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, May 12, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission had discretion to order unitization effective upon filing of a proper petition. Its exercise of this discretion was a matter for case-specific determination, not jurisdiction.
|
|||||
| Lloyd's & Inst. of London Underwriting Cos. v. Fulton, Supreme Court Nos. S-8136, S-8185, No. 5271,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, May 12, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insurer breached duty to give prompt notice to insurer of potentially conflicting interests of insurer causing prejudice so insurer estopped from denying coverage though later determined no coverage existed.
|
|||||
| Sullivan v. Subramanian, Supreme Court No. S-8724, No. 5270,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, May 12, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act permits a tenant to recover damages, including diminished rental value, for a landlord's breaches of statutory duties, regardless of whether they are material or involve essential services.
|
|||||
| Guldin v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-7451, No. 4218,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, May 17, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where record of judge's sentencing remarks objectively established that he mistakenly described the sentence he intended, the imposition of a corrected sentence did not constitute a violation of appellant's constitutional rights.
|
|||||
| Hartvigsen v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-6838, No. 4215,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, May 17, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Reasonable jurors could have agreed that the State proved the charge of first-degree sexual abuse of a minor against defendant beyond a reasonable doubt, and defendant's 10-year sentence was not clearly mistaken.
|
|||||
| Hill v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-7414, No. 4216,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, May 17, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Repeat felon's composite sentence was not excessive because he had three prior felonies, a history of similar offenses, and committed his last violation while on bail.
|
|||||
| Hoogendorn v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-7503, No. 4219,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, May 17, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sentence imposed on first-felony offender convicted of second degree assault was not excessive where appellant committed a serious assault with a weapon over a protracted period of time and had a history of physically abusing his spouse.
|
|||||
| Locke v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-7274, No. 4214,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, May 17, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In criminal appeal, conviction was affirmed. Appellant was not entitled to refuse assistance to a police officer in the recovery of stolen property, even where appellant thought the seizure was unlawful.
|
|||||
| Lyttaker v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-7247, No. 4217,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, May 17, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where trial court's finding that appellant had moved to withdraw his plea because he was dissatisfied with his sentence was not clearly erroneous, it was not error to conclude that appellant had not proven that the withdrawal was necessary.
|
|||||
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. |
