 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| State v. Morgan, Court of Appeals Nos. A-8691/8725/8726, No. 1982,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, April 29, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the State's interest in preventing underage drinking was sufficiently strong, and the importance of the minor defendants' interest was relatively low, the challenged probation provision of Alaska Stat. ¿ 04.16.050 had a substantial relationship to the social policy of preventing underage drinking.
|
|||||
| Vroman v. City of Soldotna, Supreme Court No. S-11387, No. 5892,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, April 29, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where city council had not confirmed arbitrator as its representative on employee relations board, he nevertheless had colorable authority due to his appointment by mayor and acted within scope and apparent authority of office and the de facto officer doctrine conferred validity on the arbitration decision confirming termination of police officer.
|
|||||
| Akaran v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8690, No. 4984,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, May 4, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was properly convicted of second-degree assault under Alaska Stat. ¿ 11.41.210(a)(2) because a bite to a victim's face constituted a serious and protracted disfigurement under Alaska Stat. ¿ 11.81.900(b)(56)(B). Evidence of prior assaults against the same victim were admitted under Alaska R. Evid. 404(b) to rebut a self-defense argument.
|
|||||
| Jena H. v. State, Supreme Court No. S-10905, S-10944, No. 1211,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, May 4, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because Alaska Stat. ¿ 47.10.086 did not require reasonable efforts at reunification with extended family members and because a mother did not argue that Alaska Division of Family & Youth Services (DFYS) failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify her with her children, the trial court did not err in concluding that DFYS made reasonable efforts.
|
|||||
| Lorna F. v. State, Supreme Court No. S-11458, No. 1212,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, May 4, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the mother of four children had a pattern of alcohol abuse and bingo-playing that diverted funds from the children's basic needs, the superior court's decision terminating her parental rights was supported by substantial evidence. Pursuant to Alaska Stat. ¿ 47.05.065(5)(C), adoption would create a greater sense of stability for the children.
|
|||||
| Monzingo v. Alaska Air Group, Inc., Supreme Court No. S-11240,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, May 6, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Breach of contract action against an airline for changes to the frequent flyer program was not preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act, 49 U.S.C.S. ¿ 41713(b)(1). The airline was entitled to summary judgment, because the plan allowed changes. The award of attorney's fees against the customer for litigation of class certification was error.
|
|||||
| Crumpler v. State ex rel. Armstrong, Supreme Court No. S-11428, No. 1213,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, May 11, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although father claimed that he had not received notice of child support enforcement division (CSED) petition to modify child support until day of hearing, January 14, 2004, trial court did not err in ordering modification retroactive to date father was served with CSED notice as court found father had actually received notice on January 1, 2003.
|
|||||
| Maher v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8813, No. 4985,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, May 11, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: At defendant's sentencing for a theft conviction, sentencing judge intended to impose a suspended prison sentence; therefore, sentencing judge modified written judgment to reflect his intentions. Judge's actions were not improper because judge's intentions were sufficiently clear from his oral remarks.
|
|||||
| Trapp v. State, Supreme Court No. S-11280, No. 5895,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, May 13, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court rejected an individual's argument that the Alaska Office of Public Advocacy (OPA) was liable for failing to seek to become the individual's guardian, rather than just her conservator under Alaska Stat. ¿ 13.26.280; the OPA had no such duty.
|
|||||
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. |
