 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Tritt v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9600, No. 2047,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, April 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a DUI case which ended in a mistrial without defendant's consent, the appellate court was legally obliged to consider defendant's motion to dismiss the State's attempt to bring a second trial on double jeopardy grounds, even though no final judgement had been entered, as recent precedent ruled on the issue.
|
|||||
| Van Sickle v. McGraw, Supreme Court No. S-11725, No. 6007,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, April 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a child custody dispute, Alaska Stat. § 25.24.150 (former) applied because evidence had closed before the effective date of statutory amendments. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that father was better able to establish close and loving relationship with child, and that Sitka was better home for child than Michigan.
|
|||||
| Walsh v. State, Court of Appeals Nos. A-8805 & A-8965, No. 2048,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, April 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In trial for several offenses that included vehicle theft and driving under the influence, trial court did not err when it refused to grant a mistrial because trial court is not required to interrupt trial to investigate defendant's complaints. Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to impartial jury was not violated by failing to submit aggravator.
|
|||||
| Winston J. v. Dep't of Health & Social Servs., Supreme Court No. S-12002, No. 6008,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, April 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court order terminating father's right to his twins was affirmed because Office of Children's Services made reasonable efforts to ensure that children could be returned to the father, the children were in need of aid as provided in Alaska Stat. § 47.10.011(8), and father failed to remedy the conditions that caused them to be in need of aid.
|
|||||
| Marley v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9285, No. 5072,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, May 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trooper had probable cause to stop defendant for traffic violation. He then observed that defendant appeared intoxicated, and his focus shifted to investigating DUI offense, Alaska Stat. § 28.35.030(a)(2). Defendant's blood alcohol level was .098 percent. Thus, defendant's motion to suppress was properly denied, and his DUI conviction was affirmed.
|
|||||
| Hogg v. Raven Contrs., Inc., Supreme Court No. S-11874, No. 6009,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, May 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A motion for a new trial was properly denied in a negligence case, despite a jury finding that an owner of property was negligent, because the jury could have determined that the negligence did not cause injuries sustained when an injured party fell into a trash container while dumping garbage.
|
|||||
| Jarvis v. Ensminger, Supreme Court No. S-11581, No. 6010,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, May 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of a manager's promissory estoppel and misrepresentation claims was not harmless error where the corporation never moved for summary judgment, and therefore, the burden of showing any genuine issues of material fact never shifted to the manager and his claims should not have been dismissed for failure to carry that burden.
|
|||||
| Smith v. CSK Auto Corp., Supreme Court No. S-11791,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, May 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Seymour v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-08093,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, May 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
