 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Djioev v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9158, No. 5040,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, February 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In post-conviction relief matter, applicant alleged counsel inappropriately advised him of deportation risk. District court was required to review the application again because the parties failed to bring to district court's attention pertinent case law, which drew distinction between giving no advice and giving wrong advice.
|
|||||
| Robinson v. Municipality of Anchorage, Court of Appeals No. A-9280, No. 5041,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, February 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant refused to get out of his vehicle during a traffic stop, tried to jerk himself out of the hands of police during his arrest, and refused to get into the back of the patrol car, the evidence supported his conviction for resisting or interfering with a police officer, Anchorage, Alaska, Mun. Code 8.30.010.A.6.
|
|||||
| Taylor v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9061, No. 5042,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, February 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was convicted of criminal trespass. District court did not abuse discretion in refusing to give defendant's proffered instructions because defendant failed to explain why district court should give supplemental instructions when district court's standard instructions correctly reflected Alaska Stat. § 11.46.350(a)(1).
|
|||||
| City of Kenai v. Friends of the Rec. Ctr., Inc., Supreme Court No. S-11506, No. 5989,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, February 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the public interest litigants brought a meritorious claim against the city and obtained a preliminary injunction, they did not lose their prevailing party status for purposes of attorney's fees recovery under Alaska R. Civ. P. 82 where, through the political process, the city later mooted the lawsuit and accomplished their challenged goals.
|
|||||
| Elliott v. Elliott, Supreme Court No. S-11944, No. 5985,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, February 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a modification of child custody and child support matter, superior court erred, pursuant to Alaska Stat. § 25.20.110(a), in modifying parents' arrangement without holding a hearing and making factual findings because modification order was plainly an initial custody determination that called for a hearing.
|
|||||
| Flowline of Alaska v. Brennan, Supreme Court No. S-11900, No. 5986,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, February 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an employer's challenge to the workers' compensation board's award to its former employee, the board's finding that the employee was not an exclusively temporary employee under Alaska Stat. § 23.30.220(a)(6) was proper considering the number of hours he worked, his continuing relationship with the union, and his work history.
|
|||||
| Fortson v. Fortson, Supreme Court No. S-11332/S-11341, No. 5987,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, February 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where husband had reasonable earning capacity and received portion of marital estate large enough to help him transition into post-marital life and wife faced substantial healthcare costs and her ability to earn income would likely fall, 60/40 property division in favor of wife was within the trial court's discretion under Alaska Stat. § 25.24.160.
|
|||||
| Kinegak v. Dep't of Corr., Supreme Court No. S-11315, No. 5988,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, February 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The legislature that enacted Alaska Stat. § 09.50.250(3) meant to immunize the government from claims arising out of the conduct constituting reasonably well-recognized forms of false imprisonment.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
