 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Alaska Inter-Tribal Council v. State, Supreme Court No. S-10844,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, April 15, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under U.S. Const. amend. XIV and Alaska Const. art. I, ¿ 1, the State of Alaska did not violate the equal protection rights of residents of "off-road," Native communities through its allocation of law enforcement services. While off-road communties received less law enforcement services, they were not similarly situated to the on-road communities.
|
|||||
| Anderson v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8064, No. 1978,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, April 15, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Victim's response to the officer's question of "what happened" was admissible as an excited utterance under Alaska R. Evid. 803(2), and was not barred by the U.S. Constitution Confrontation Clause, because the court followed the emerging majority view on the admissibility of excited responses to brief on-the-scene questioning by police officers.
|
|||||
| Baker v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-7882, No. 1980,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, April 15, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a DWI case, a court properly found that defendant's conduct was among the most serious conduct, Alaska Stat. ¿ 12.55.155, where defendant had a high blood alcohol level, he was also under the influence of cocaine, and defendant drove on the sidewalk and could have easily injured or killed any number of people with his actions.
|
|||||
| Bartley v. State, Supreme Court No. S-10392, No. 5888,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, April 15, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Retired teachers were not entitled to receive normal retirement under Alaska Stat. ¿ 14.25.110(a)(1) because the date of hire did not include the date that an employee was first hired into any creditable non-Alaska Teachers' Retirement System service. The arrearages owed by the teachers were improperly calculated under Alaska Stat. ¿ 14.25.060(b).
|
|||||
| Gladden v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8710, No. 1979,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, April 15, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: By refusing to request appointed counsel or take steps necessary to hire private counsel, defendant impliedly elected to proceed pro se; however, because the record did not unequivocally show that defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel, the court reversed defendant's conviction.
|
|||||
| In re Hanlon, Supreme Court No. S-11351, No. 5887,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, April 15, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An attorney was suspended for three years for failing to file certain documents in a divorce case and falsifying settlement documents in response to a grievance, in violation of Alaska Bar R. 15(a)(3) and Alaska R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(c). Cooperation and the personal effect of the suspension were not appropriate mitigating factors.
|
|||||
| N. Pac. Processors, Inc. v. City & Borough of Yakutat, Supreme Court Nos. S-11072/11091, No. 5885,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, April 15, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a dispute between a tenant and a landlord, disputed items did fall within the definition of "trade fixtures" because the tenant installed them at its own expense, during the term of the leases, to carry on its fish processing business.
|
|||||
| Osborne v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8399, No. 1976,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, April 15, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Superior court was allowed to reconsider denial of post-conviction relief because appellate court adopted test for applicant, who was convicted of assault, sexual assault, and kidnapping, to show counsel's ineffective assistance for failing to seek advanced DNA testing. If test were met, limitations of Alaska Stat. ¿ 12.72.020 must also be met.
|
|||||
| Ratliff v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8651, No. 1977,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, April 15, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: No evidence suggested that the trial court abused its discretion by concluding that it could adequately assess the validity of a criminologist's testimony comparing shoeprints left at the crime scene with the patterns on the bottom of defendant's shoes without going through a formal Daubert analysis.
|
|||||
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. |
