 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| D.S. v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9472, No. 5193,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, March 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a sexual assault case, because the victim's father invoked his rights under Alaska Stat. § 12.61.125 only after the defense interviewed him, there was no impropriety when the prosecutor commented that he was available as a witness if the defense wanted to call him because the defense knew, at least in general terms, what the father would say.
|
|||||
| Allen v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9343, No. 2091,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, March 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate was properly denied postconviction relief because he failed to present sufficient evidence that trial attorneys acted incompetently by failing to present two witnesses' testimony, as he failed to produce an affidavit from either witness setting forth what their testimony would have been as required under Alaska R. Crim. P. 35.1(d).
|
|||||
| Lockuk v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9534, No. 2090,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, March 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion under Alaska R. Crim. P. 35(a) was properly denied because he failed show plain error as Blakely exception for prior convictions had not been abolished and he never disputed that he had eight prior convictions, and therefore jury would not find in his favor concerning applicability of aggravators of Alaska Stat. § 12.55.155(c)
|
|||||
| Pyramid Printing Co. v. Alaska State Comm'n for Human Rights, Supreme Court No. S-12046, No. 6112,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, March 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee alleged that employer's general manager sexually harassed her; evidence supported decision of Alaska State Commission to Human Rights to award employee backpay that also included vacation pay. Commission erred, however, in awarding interest rate of 10.5 percent for prejudgment interest, pursuant to Alaska Admin. Code tit. 6, § 30.480(b).
|
|||||
| Cloyd v. State, Court of Appeals Nos. A-8631/A-9541, No. 5194,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, March 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was convicted of stalking in the first degree and violating a protective order. Defendant argued that his sentence was excess and in violation of Blakely and Sixth Amendment rights; however, sentencing court could sentence defendant to aggravated term without benefit of jury because of defendant's prior convictions and past history.
|
|||||
| Nye v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9192, No. 5195,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, March 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Officer followed defendant, who staggered before driving and then drove erratically. Officer's first contact was not investigatory stop; later detention was lawful, under Fourth Amendment, because officer had reasonable suspicion that defendant was DUI based on observations of defendant's red, blood-shot eyes, smell of alcohol, and slurred speech.
|
|||||
| Gladden v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9429, No. 2092,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, March 23, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel was not violated when he proceeded in a license suspension case without an attorney because he waived the right to counsel by refusing to hire any attorney unless they agreed to sign a certain contract. This valid waiver remained in effect during subsequent proceedings in the case.
|
|||||
| Petrolane Inc. v. Robles, Supreme Court No. S-11042, No. 6113,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, March 23, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Tank owner was injured when lessee was filling propane tank which exploded. Under proportionate share rule, adopted by Alaska Stat. § 09.17.080(d), lessee (non-settling party) was entitled to an offset for only distributor's 43.75% share of the harm - settling party's comparative fault - and thus remained liable for 56.25% of tank owner's damages.
|
|||||
| Baker v. John, Supreme Court No. S-11546, No. 1272,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, March 28, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A superior court did not abuse its discretion in finding that substantial hardship to a mother's younger children justified deviating from imposing the full Alaska R. Civ. P. 90.3 baseline obligation upon her where she testified that the father was recently released from jail, unemployed at the time of trial, and had not supported their children.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
