 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Harrold v. Artwohl, Supreme Court No. S-11638, No. 5998,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, March 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a patient underwent surgery to remove his appendix, the record suggested that he may not have been told that a CT scan could have ruled out the need for immediate surgery. The court erred by dismissing his malpractice suit upon summary judgment; a triable issue of fact was raised concerning informed consent under Alaska Stat. § 09.55.556.
|
|||||
| Kay v. Danbar, Inc., Supreme Court Nos. S-11008/S-11017, No. 5999,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, March 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court erred in a premises liability case when it denied a tenant's motion to withdraw an election to proceed under Alaska R. Civ. P. 26(g) where there was no evidence of dilatory conduct or bad faith; delay alone was an insufficient reason for denying the motion.
|
|||||
| Lakloey, Inc. v. Univ. of Alaska, Supreme Court No. S-11624, No. 5997,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, March 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Contractor was not entitled to recover bid preparation costs under Alaska Stat. § 36.30.585 based upon a mere showing of irregularities; therefore, it was unable to recover where it did not lose time, resources, or incur additional costs when an addendum was untimely added and when a written determination of a shorter notice period was not given.
|
|||||
| Tyler v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8991, No. 2039,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, March 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial judge did not commit error when he relied on prior conviction exception in Blakely in sentencing defendant to five years' imprisonment; because defendant did not dispute existence of his prior convictions for driving under the influence, trial judge properly found aggravator Alaska Stat. § 12.55.155(c)(21) without submitting issue to jury.
|
|||||
| Nicole H. v. State, Supreme Court No. S-11974, No. 1246,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, April 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Record strongly supported the trial court's finding that the Office of Children's Services (OCS) made active efforts to reunited mother and son as required by Alaska CINA R. 18(c) (2000); 25 U.S.C.S. § 1912(d) where the OCS made active efforts to arrange a psychological evaluation for the mother once it was recommended by a caseworker.
|
|||||
| Rodgers v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8841, No. 5066,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, April 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was convicted of driving under the influence. Trial court did not err in failing to suppress evidence because testimony about police officer's observations was sufficient to show police officer had probable cause to believe defendant failed to stop at stop sign, which preceded traffic stop.
|
|||||
| Sutton v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8749, No. 5065,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, April 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When defense expert disagreed with State's expert regarding DNA test's probability to establish paternity in trial for second-degree sexual abuse of minor, prosecutor's remarks were not improper, and mistrial was unnecessary when prosecutor pointed out that defense expert did not follow recommended standards of retesting.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
