 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Damer v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9385, No. 5215,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, May 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of defendant's motion to suppress was proper because, regardless of the exact location of his boat, the officers were authorized to arrest him for operating a watercraft under the influence under Alaska Stat. §§ 12.25.030(a)(1), 12.25.033 once they had probable cause to believe that he was committing, or had just committed, that offense.
|
|||||
| Saetern v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9071, No. 5214,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, May 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a kidnapping case, the jury could reasonably conclude that defendant restrained his girlfriend with the intent to place her in fear that he would inflict serious physical injury on their child. The girlfriend could perceive a threat, even though she did not hear defendant's verbal threat to injure the child.
|
|||||
| Smith v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9295, No. 5212,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, May 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was sufficient evidence to support a conviction for burglary in the first degree under Alaska Stat. § 11.46.300(a)(1) based on an intent to assault where defendant went to a victim's house twice, he had been acting erratically during the day, he grabbed the victim's wrist and tried to pull her inside the residence, and he killed her dog.
|
|||||
| Torreano v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9582, No. 5213,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, May 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court did not err by extending defendant's term of probation to allow for the payment of restitution, even though the term had expired, because Alaska Stat. § 33.05.070 allowed for the filing of a petition to revoke within the maximum probation period of 10 years.
|
|||||
| Edwards v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9018, No. 2097,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, May 4, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for second-degree murder for killing a child was affirmed. Although the guilty verdicts for both manslaughter and murder were inconsistent, defendant failed to object to the instructions and the jury was told to view the manslaughter conviction as a preliminary stage for the murder conviction.
|
|||||
| Harvey v. Antrim, Court of Appeals No. A-9839, No. 2096,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, May 4, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's motion to vacate judgments rendered in a criminal case was denied because Alaska's personal jurisdiction over a habeas corpus case was not negated due to the fact that the inmate was serving his time in Arizona in a contracted private prison. Due to agency, the out-of-state custodian had sufficient contacts with Alaska.
|
|||||
| Lampley v. Municipality of Anchorage, Court of Appeals No. A-8994, No. 2095,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, May 4, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was entitled to a new trial on the charge of driving with a suspended or revoked license under Anchorage, Alaska, Mun. Code 9.28.019.B because the district court erroneously instructed the jury that the culpable mental state for the offense was negligence when in fact it was recklessness.
|
|||||
| Lexington Mktg. Group v. Goldbelt Eagle, LLC, Supreme Court No. S-12171, No. 6122,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, May 4, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A superior court erred in declining to refer a marketing company's compensation claim to an arbitrator based on a finding that the underlying contract was void because neither Alaska Stat. §§ 09.43.010 and 09.43.020 nor the Federal Arbitration Act permitted a court deciding arbitrability to adjudicate the validity of the underlying contract.
|
|||||
| Sands v. Green, Supreme Court No. S-11582, No. 6121,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, May 4, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because Alaska Stat. § 09.10.140(c) foreclosed the son's personal injury action due to the fact that his parents failed to timely file suit, it violated his procedural due process right of access to the courts under Alaska Const. art. I, § 7, and therefore the order dismissing the action was reversed.
|
|||||
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. |
