 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Conkey v. Dep't of Admin., Supreme Court No. S-11361, No. 5906,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, June 10, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even towed snowmobile was motor vehicle. As steering such a vehicle, even if only partially, involved exercising control over the vehicle, it amounted to operating vehicle. Where motorist was operating towed snowmobile while intoxicated and refused to submit to chemical breath test, his license was properly revoked under Alaska Stat. ¿ 28.15.165.
|
|||||
| Hall v. TWS, Inc., Supreme Court No. S-10878, No. 5907,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, June 10, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Corporation sought to enforce judgment against debtor by foreclosing against mining claims once owned by a partnership of which the debtor was a partner. Alaska Stat. ¿ 32.05 (former) governed. Mining claims were held by a tenancy in common because another partner's bankruptcy had dissolved the partnership; corporation could foreclose upon claims.
|
|||||
| Martinez v. Cape Fox Corp., Supreme Court No. S-11197, No. 5909,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, June 10, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A finding that a former corporate director be barred for life from reelection was improper pursuant to Alaska Stat. ¿ 10.06.160, where, although the superior court made detailed findings regarding the nature of the director's misconduct, none of those findings suggested a reason for increasing the ban from 15 years to life following a second trial.
|
|||||
| Rockstad v. Erikson, Supreme Court No. S-10464, No. 5908,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, June 10, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In creditor-debtor dispute, trial court properly denied debtor's motions for summary judgment on statute of limitations and usury because debtor made payment, which revived debt, and trial court properly construed parties' note, which was a contract, in favor of legality.
|
|||||
| Mary U. v. HHS, Supreme Court No. S-11456, No. 1216,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, June 15, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a termination of a parental rights matter, mother argued that termination proceeding did not satisfy requirements of Indian Child Welfare Act; however, trial court properly terminated parental rights because children were in need of assistance, as defined by Alaska Stat. ¿ 47.10.011, and mother did not correct her behavior.
|
|||||
| Ramsey v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8846, No. 4988,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, June 15, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court properly sentenced defendant to 198 years in prison on his murder and assault convictions where he had planned his crime, carried a shotgun to school, and hunted his victims down and killed them. The finding that defendant had engaged in unexplained, extreme, and unprovoked violence was also supported by the record.
|
|||||
| Paige v. State, Court of Appeals Nos. A-8663/8664, No. 1987,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, June 17, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was sentenced for several offenses; trial court did not say whether sentences were to be served consecutively or concurrently. Appellate court construed former Alaska Stat. ¿ 12.55.025 to mean that the sentences should be concurrent. Also, sentence greater than presumptive term was not unconstitutional because of aggravating factors.
|
|||||
| Williams v. Crawford, Supreme Court No. S-11231, No. 1217,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, June 22, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a dispute arising out of a mutual mistake during a divorce settlement, superior court properly calculated an amount that wife should be awarded as of the date of the settlement; however, the superior court erred in its award of fees because the wife was prevailing party for fee purposes as she was entitled to some recovery.
|
|||||
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. |
