 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Akpik v. State, Supreme Court No. S-11078, No. 5915,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, June 24, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Landowners' appeal of the Division of Governmental Coordination's determination that oil company's drilling project was consistent with Alaska Coastal Management Program was moot and the public interest doctrine did not apply because project had been abandoned and the applicable statutes had been amended; thus issues were not capable of repetition.
|
|||||
| Cummins, Inc. v. Nelson, Supreme Court Nos. S-11172/11201, No. 5917,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, June 24, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a negligence case based on the vicarious liability of two manufacturers, a directed verdict was properly denied because there was sufficient evidence presented regarding an employee's manifestations about a boat repair and the owners' reliance thereon to submit the case to the jury under the doctrine of apparent authority.
|
|||||
| Dep't of Revenue v. Cowgill, Supreme Court No. S-11337, No. 5913,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, June 24, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alaska Workers' Compensation Board's properly awarded attorney's fees to a claimant, pursuant to Alaska Stat. § 23.30.145; the fee award was not manifestly unreasonable, the Board's findings were legally sufficient, and the Board did not abuse its discretion by relying on contingency as a factor in its award.
|
|||||
| Halloran v. State, Supreme Court No. S-11358, No. 5912,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, June 24, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a superior court did not err by refusing to confer prevailing party status upon a voter whose constitutional election challenge was mooted by subsequent legislation under the catalyst theory, it erred by refusing to consider the status under Alaska R. Civ. P. 82 since a TRO afforded the voter the relief sought.
|
|||||
| Interior Trails Pres. Coalition v. Swope, Supreme Court No. S-11323, No. 5916,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, June 24, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court erred in dismissing a suit for a prescriptive easement by a public coalition because, although the coalition was in existence less than 10 years, the coalition was only required to prove continuous use by the public in general and the public had used a pathway that ran through the property since the 1950s to gain access to the trail.
|
|||||
| Pilant v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8708, No. 1988,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, June 24, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The breath test presumption of Alaska Stat. § 28.35.033(a) avoided the necessity of calling expert witnesses in each case to establish by extrapolation the BAC of a defendant at the time of the alleged offense and did not shift the burden of proof or of persuasion to the accused; therefore, the trial court did not err by rendering the instruction.
|
|||||
| Roussel v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8742, No. 1989,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, June 24, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction for fourth-degree misconduct involving a controlled substance, Alaska Stat. § 11.71.040, where defendant admitted that he had taken a prescription pad from the doctor's office, forged the doctor's signature, and presented the prescriptions to pharmacies to obtain drugs.
|
|||||
| Schaub v. K&L Distribs., Supreme Court No. S-11186, No. 5911,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, June 24, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A grant of summary judgment in favor of the employer in the employee's action for breach of contract after being terminated was proper pursuant to 29 U.S.C.S. § 160(b) where the claim was time-barred because it was a hybrid claim subject to a six-month statute of limitations.
|
|||||
| Schmidt v. Koivisto, Supreme Court No. S-11427, No. 5914,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, June 24, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even though no specific rule violation was specified, trial court did not err in ordering attorney to pay attorney fees and costs for the opposing party's reply to the attorney's late brief because the attorney violated multiple rules that granted the trial court power to impose deadlines, which justified sanctions under Alaska R. Civ. P. 95(a).
|
|||||
| Tanghe v. Tanghe, Supreme Court No. S-11222, No. 5910,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, June 24, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in dividing the separate from the marital components of a husband's 401(k) plan because its method of division was not accurate. The components of the plan should have been determined by tracing the earnings of the separate property component instead of by using a coverture fraction.
|
|||||
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. |
