 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Carlson v. Renkes, Supreme Court No. S-11492, No. 5903,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, June 3, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Superior court did not err by treating inmate's complaint as an administrative appeal as Alaska Stat. ¿ 09.19.100 did not create independent action and DOC classification hearings were adjudicative proceedings. Complaint was not untimely under Alaska R. App. P. 602(a)(2) ad 30-day period for filing administrative appeal had not begun to run.
|
|||||
| Dugan v. Atlanta Cas. Cos., Supreme Court No. S-11133, No. 5900,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, June 3, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Son could not have had "reasonable expectations" there would have been coverage for father, who was living out of back pack and sleeping on floor. Coverage was not extended to blood relatives of policy holder who were not residents of household. Father was not entitled to uninsured motorist coverage where, as a pedestrian, he was hit outside home.
|
|||||
| Ebertz v. Ebertz, Supreme Court No. S-11190, No. 5905,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, June 3, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court properly awarded sole custody of two children, and shared custody of a third, to the mother, Alaska Stat. ¿ 25.24.150, where she was the primary caretaker, the father was often absent, the mother was involved in the children's school and activities, the mother's home was appropriately kept, and the children were clean and well fed.
|
|||||
| Fuller v. City of Homer, Supreme Court No. S-11105, No. 5902,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, June 3, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A city was permitted to charge a fee for the production of documents to the extent that such production exceeded five hours under Homer, Alaska, Reg. 01.03 (2003), Homer, Alaska, Reg. 01.05 (2003), Homer, Alaska, Code ¿ 01.80.050(a) (1995), and Alaska Stat. ¿ 40.25.110; however, time spent conducting a privilege review was not recoverable.
|
|||||
| Snyder v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8720, No. 1985,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, June 3, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court erred by refusing to allow defendant to introduce evidence of his interaction with the victim following the alleged sexual assault as the evidence was important for the jury to evaluate the victim's credibility and the probative value of the testimony was not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under Alaska R. Evid. 403.
|
|||||
| State v. Cameron, Court of Appeals No. A-8785, No. 1986,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, June 3, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The superior court improperly dismissed the indictment against defendant as defendant's proposed testimony regarding his state of mind at the time he threatened the victims with his rifle was not the type of clearly exculpatory evidence whose presentation was required by Alaska R. Crim. P. 6(q). Thus, indictment against defendant was reinstated.
|
|||||
| Tufco, Inc. v. Pac. Envtl. Corp., Supreme Court No. S-11132, No. 5904,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, June 3, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an eviction action, a lessor was not allowed to amend its complaint under Alaska R. Civ. P. 15(b) to conform to the evidence because a modification issue was not addressed at trial. Equitable estoppel precluded the lessor from claiming a breach due to an implicit assertion that a hazardous materials provision would not be enforced.
|
|||||
| Veselsky v. Veselsky, Supreme Court No. S-11560, No. 5901,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, June 3, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court properly allowed a mother to retain custody of the children, Alaska Stat. ¿ 25.24.150, if she completed a planned out-of-state move due to the nature of the graduate program, the availability of family support while she returned to school, and the fact that she had better than average parenting abilities.
|
|||||
| Michael v. State, Supreme Court No. S-11019,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, June 9, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a sexual assault case, defendant was released from custody as the appellate court should have applied the de novo standard of review to the trial court's rejection of defendant's proposed mitigating factors under Alaska Stat. ¿ 12.55.155, and fundamental fairness required that he be treated as if he had completed serving the sentence.
|
|||||
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. |
