 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Circle De Lumber Co. v. Humphrey, Supreme Court No. S-11086, No. 5994,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, March 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the PTD and TTD compensation rates set by the Alaska Workers' Compensation Board were properly calculated under former Alaska Stat. §§ 23.30.220(a) and 23.30.185 and were supported by substantial evidence; the award of interest on the employee's late-paid TTD and PPI benefits began to accrue as of the date of their classification.
|
|||||
| Y. J. v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9021, No. 2034,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, March 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for tampering with evidence under Alaska Stat. § 11.56.610(a) was affirmed as defendant's hiding of the holster under a bed while he was being chased by the police was done with the intent to impair its availability in a criminal investigation.
|
|||||
| Gamble v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8891, No. 5057,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, March 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In post-conviction relief case, witness's trial testimony showed that she did testify that she had just gotten out of hospital and was under influence of medication. Thus, there was no basis to find that her proposed testimony would be newly discovered. Thus, State's summary judgment motion under Alaska R. Crim. P. 35.1(f)(3) was properly granted.
|
|||||
| Jones v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9019, No. 5053,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, March 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant's probation violations chronicled a consistent pattern of failing to comply with his probation requirements, the trial court was not clearly mistaken in imposing the near-maximum sentence for the misdemeanor conviction for defendant's failure to register as a sex offender.
|
|||||
| Nielsen v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8871, No. 5056,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, March 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was sufficient to sustain defendant's sexual abuse of a minor convictions, Alaska Stat. § 11.41.436, where the State established the ages of both defendant and the girls, and each girl testified that defendant touched them around their vaginal area, as demonstrated by their testimony and the diagrams which they marked.
|
|||||
| Patterson v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8814, No. 5052,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, March 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where petitioner was convicted of sexual assault and related offenses in 1981, his seventh application for post-conviction relief was barred as untimely and successive under Alaska Stat. § 12.72.020. Petitioner failed to show due diligence in pursuing DNA testing. The State had no duty to preserve the evidence after the conviction was final.
|
|||||
| Ross v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8713, No. 5055,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, March 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's third-degree assault conviction under Alaska Stat. § 11.41.220(a)(1)(A) was upheld, because evidence was sufficient to establish that he did not act in self-defense and that he used dangerous instrument, as defendant was first aggressor, and he used his arm to choke victim so that she could not breathe and lost consciousness for a time.
|
|||||
| Sykes v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8903, No. 5054,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, March 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: After the evidentiary hearing, the appellate court agreed with the district court judge that the efforts made by troopers to find defendant from February 6 to February 19 were reasonable. With those 13 days excluded from the Alaska R. Crim. P. 45 speedy trial calculation, defendant was brought to trial within the time limits of the rule - 120 days.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
