 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Howarth v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8727, No. 5073,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, May 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Applicant sought post-conviction relief long after the statute of limitations had passed. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing application because applicant failed to show, as required by Alaska Stat. § 12.72.02, that he suffered from a mental disease or defect that precluded him from filing application within a required time.
|
|||||
| Interior Cabaret, Hotel, Rest. & Retailers Ass'n v. Fairbanks N. Star Borough, Supreme Court No. S-11481, No. 6012,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, May 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Superior court properly held that Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska, Ordinance No. 2003-52, did not violate Alaska Stat. § 29.35.150 as the sales tax was areawide and was operated in the manner described in Alaska Stat. § 29.45.650(a). The tax also was not a discriminatory tax on alcoholic beverages that violated Alaska Stat. § 04.21.010(c)(2).
|
|||||
| Leigh v. Seekins Ford, Supreme Court No. S-11270, No. 6011,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, May 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under the Alaska Workers' Compensation Act, the Alaska Workers' Compensation Board concluded that a claimant was not psychiatrically precluded from work. But, that conclusion did not dispose of his claim that his pain and pain medication prevented him from being employed. Thus, the trial court erred in affirming the Board's denial of PTD benefits.
|
|||||
| Stickman-Sam v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9307, No. 2049,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, May 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was accused of an offense, manslaughter, that allegedly took place at or near Galena, Alaska. Trial court erred in denying defendant's motion to change venue after the trial was set in Fairbanks because, under Alaska R. Crim. P. 18(e), defendant could move to have trial site elsewhere within venue district.
|
|||||
| Vaska v. State, Supreme Court No. S-11171, No. 6013,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, May 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant's decision not to cross-examine victim at trial may have been influenced by the State's exclusive reliance on Alaska R. Evid. 804(b)(5) and by its failure to lay any foundation to admit the victim's statements under Alaska R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(A), it was error to apply prior inconsistent statement provision for first time on appeal.
|
|||||
| Aguchak v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8976, No. 5075,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, May 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence on a first degree sexual assault conviction, Alaska Stat. § 11.41.410(a)(1), was affirmed as judicial precedent clearly provided that his prior conviction of assaultive behavior did not need to be proven to a jury. The conviction was, by itself, sufficient to establish the aggravating factor in Alaska Stat. § 12.55.155(c)(8).
|
|||||
| Grant v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8856, No. 5074,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, May 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In trial for interfering with report of domestic violence and fourth-degree assault, trial court did not err in refusing to give lesser-included instructions on disorderly conduct and harassment because a jury could have convicted defendant of fourth-degree assault yet still acquitted him of disorderly conduct and harassment.
|
|||||
| Joseph v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9055, No. 5076,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, May 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant was convicted of first-degree murder under Alaska Stat. § 11.41.100(a)(1)(A), the State did not violate his Miranda rights; autopsy photographs were properly admitted; testimony from the State's rebuttal witnesses did not violate the rule against hearsay; and defendant was not entitled to a mistrial due to jury argument.
|
|||||
| Lavonne v. Lavonne, Supreme Court No. S-11643, No. 1247,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, May 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Superior court properly denied a father's motion for a continuance where the evidence showed that he was responsible for the significant delay in the child custody case. The denial of visitation until the father completed a domestic violence course was upheld as the evidence supported the finding that he posed a threat to his son.
|
|||||
| Rowland v. Monsen, Supreme Court No. S-11603, No. 6014,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, May 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court's refusal to set aside an order requiring a mother to pay attorney's fees to a father in a custody dispute was not void under Alaska R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4). Trial court had power under Alaska Stat. § 25.20.115 to award fees, mother had opportunity to be heard in opposition to motion, and untimeliness of motion was not a fundamental flaw.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
