 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bryant v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8375, No. 2044,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, April 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court affirmed a denial of defendant's motion for a new trial because defendant could not establish that his trial counsel was ineffective as defendant did not establish that he was prejudiced by his attorney's failure to call a witness or offer defendant's Navy SEAL certificate into evidence.
|
|||||
| Cooper v. Dist. Court, Court of Appeals No. A-8835, No. 2043,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, April 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alaska Const. art. I, § 24 and Victims' Rights Act, Alaska Stat. § 12.61, did not give the crime victim or the Office of Victims' Rights the right to intervene in criminal case; thus, they did not have standing to appeal the victim's husband's sentence for assaulting her; and victim waived any claim of error as to psychotherapist-patient privilege.
|
|||||
| Davis v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8416, No. 2042,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, April 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's speedy trial rights under Alaska R. Crim. P. 45 were not violated in a case where a motion to suppress was filed because he was not permitted to challenge on the basis that the motion should have been filed earlier; moreover, he was bound by his attorney's actions in a change of plea hearing.
|
|||||
| In re Adoption of Missy M., Supreme Court No. S-11898, No. 6001,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, April 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Adoptions were vacated because a trial court used the improper test to determine that the Alaska Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Children's Services was unreasonable in withholding consent under Alaska Stat. § 25.23.050(a)(8); the applicants were required to prove that it was clearly detrimental to the child to deny the adoption.
|
|||||
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. |
