 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Andrus v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8547, No. 4842,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, March 24, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant had been separately punished for shooting and killing a cab driver, it was improper for the trial court to use those facts to aggravate defendant's robbery sentence. The seven-year presumptive sentence was appropriate instead.
|
|||||
| Castro v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8649, No. 4844,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, March 24, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Upon probation violations, the superior court properly sentenced defendant convicted of felony DWI to 2 years, which reflected the remainder of defendant's suspended jail time.
|
|||||
| Griffith v. Griffith, Supreme Court No. S-10096, No. 1163,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, March 24, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The superior court properly entered a child support and custody order giving the wife custody of the child, requiring the husband to pay monthly support, and directing the parties to share travel expenses once the wife became employed.
|
|||||
| Kuzmin v. State, Supreme Court No. S-10947, No. 1165,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, March 24, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission properly denied a limited entry permit. An applicant was ineligible for unavoidable circumstances points, and he failed to prove ownership interest in a vessel on which he first participated in the fishery.
|
|||||
| Lacher v. Lacher, Supreme Court No. S-10510, No. 1164,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, March 24, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In wife's appeal of property distribution after retrial of divorce proceedings, judgment was affirmed; the trial court's valuations of the of the three disputed assets on remand were not clearly erroneous.
|
|||||
| Linton v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8503, No. 4841,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, March 24, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court erred in dismissing an application for post-conviction relief, where defendant claimed that his attorney would not zealously represent him if he chose to testify. The factual conflict could not be resolved based on competing affidavits.
|
|||||
| Riley v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8508, No. 4843,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, March 24, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court properly dismissed an untimely petition for post-conviction relief filed by an inmate convicted of first-degree murder. The inmate did not have a valid Apprendi claim, because her sentence of 99 years was within the statutory range.
|
|||||
| Crawford v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8082, No. 1920,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, March 26, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court's findings supported the legal conclusion that the officer's search of the console of defendant's car for weapons was justified as a search incident to arrest; thus, the search was justified and defendant's conviction was upheld.
|
|||||
| Matanuska Elec. Ass'n v. Waterman, Supreme Court No. S-10828, No. 5790,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, March 26, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was properly granted in favor of a member because a corporation had no discretion to disqualify a candidate from its board of directors based on a campaign violation where the candidate complied with the bylaw procedures.
|
|||||
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. |
