 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Brynna B. v. State, Supreme Court No. S-11070, No. 5788,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, March 19, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The State Department of Health and Social Services properly refused to place a child in her aunt's custody, where the aunt would likely ignore instructions not to place the child with her mother.
|
|||||
| Gunter v. Kathy-O-Estates, Supreme Court No. S-10931, No. 5789,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, March 19, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a workers' compensation case, the superior court properly denied reimbursement of the financial consequences of the employee's work-related injury and refused to overturn his compromise and release agreement with his employer.
|
|||||
| Kaiser v. Royal Ins. Co. of Am., Supreme Court No. S-10703, Order No. 48,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, March 19, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A compensation board should have decided whether or not to set aside a compromise and release before denying a claim for reimbursement; interference by an insurance carrier could have violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
|
|||||
| Landt v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8154, No. 1919,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, March 19, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial judge did not abuse his discretion when he allowed the jurors to propose questions for the witnesses. Even if there was error, it was harmless as none of the questions asked elicited objectionable evidence or prejudiced defendant.
|
|||||
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. |
