 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Edgmon v. State, Supreme Court No. S-12436, No. 6099,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, February 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The Division of Elections improperly categorized three ballots as containing overvotes under Alaska Stat. § 15.15.360(a) where the voters clearly intended to vote for one candidate. Two special needs ballots were to be counted as a single listing met Alaska Stat. § 15.20.072(c)(2) if the mailing and residence addresses were the same.
|
|||||
| Larson v. Benediktsson, Supreme Court No. S-11674, No. 6101,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, February 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a trial court denied a property owner's motion for summary judgment on a builder's counterclaim for unpaid wages when the trial court found that a builder's status as an employee was a genuine issue of fact, the trial court's order denying summary judgment was not reviewable on appeal after the trial court had a trial on the merits.
|
|||||
| Matanuska Elec. Ass'n v. Chugach Elec. Ass'n, Supreme Court Nos. S-12146/S-12165, No. 6100,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, February 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a Regulatory Commission's rate decision did not bar a utility's breach of contract claim against another utility on res judicata grounds, the claim was barred under the collateral estoppel doctrine as the question as to whether the other utility's actions were consistent prudent utility practices was contested and decided in the rate case.
|
|||||
| State v. Koen, Supreme Court No. S-11963, No. 6102,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, February 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A decision granting defendant's motion to suppress evidence was reversed where a trooper's assertion that he believed that evidence would be found on the premises and ensuing description of facts relating exclusively to evidence in defendant's home supported a reasonable inference that he believed that the listed address was defendant's home.
|
|||||
| Delreal v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8786, No. 5176,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, February 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Officers stopped car in which defendant was riding after hearing gunshots. Evidence was sufficient to sustain defendant's conviction of first-degree and second-degree misconduct involving weapons, Alaska Stat. §§ 11.61.190, 11.61.195 because guns were found and testimony contradicted statements. Sufficient evidence existed to reject self-defense.
|
|||||
| Sherman v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9695, No. 5177,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, February 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In negligent homicide, third degree assault, and driving while under influence case, defendant's composite sentence was not clearly mistaken as judge gave a good reason for imposing more than three years to serve as (1) defendant was not legally entitled to possess or consume alcohol; and (2) he was being sentenced for crimes against two victims.
|
|||||
| Alaskans for Efficient Gov't, Inc. v. State, Supreme Court No. S-11916, No. 6103,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, February 23, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A superior court properly upheld the Lieutenant Governor's rejection of a proposed initiative requiring a super-majority legislative vote to enact or increase taxes as Alaska Const. art. II, § 14 operated as a constitutionally based subject-matter restriction, prohibiting the enactment of any law that proposed to modify the majority-vote standard.
|
|||||
| Rathke v. Corr. Corp. of Am., Inc., Supreme Court No. S-11885, No. 6104,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, February 23, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court improperly dismissed prisoner's contract and constitutional claims against a private correction company that arose from a positive drug test as prisoner was an intended beneficiary of a contract between the state and the company. The state owed legal duties to the prisoner under the Cleary FSA, which were incorporated into the contract.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
