 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| AVCP Reg'l Hous. Auth. v. R.A. Vranckaert Co., Supreme Court No. S-9872, No. 5573, Supreme Court No. S-9893,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, May 17, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Landlord's claim of implied contractual indemnity claims failed because the landlord failed to demonstrate that it was without fault in underlying suits and because it failed to obtain a release of the installer's liability.
|
|||||
| Richardson v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8124, No. 1803,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, May 17, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where facts of defendant's drunk driving were particularly egregious, killing two young boys and seriously injuring two other people, imposing a substantial license revocation to protect the public was a reasonable exercise of judicial authority.
|
|||||
| Municipality of Anchorage v. Murdoch, Court of Appeals No. A-7911, No. 4573,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, May 22, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court erred when it suppressed evidence gathered during the arresting officer's investigation; the officer had sufficient information to investigate whether defendant was driving while intoxicated.
|
|||||
| In re 2001 Redistricting Cases, Supreme Court No. S-10615, Order No. 40,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, May 24, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While recognition of neighborhood boundaries in creating legislative districts was an admirable goal, it was not constitutionally required and was required to give way to other legal requirements.
|
|||||
| Lexington Ins. Co. v. Lindahl Constr. & Eng'g, Inc., Supreme Court No. S-9701, No. 5574,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, May 24, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where 1985 Uniform Building Code was in effect at the time building plans were approved, the state did not breach a duty to insurers for failing to apply the 1979 version to the building plans.
|
|||||
| McGee v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-7697, No. 1804,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, May 24, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The police violated defendant's rights when they tested defendant's package with an ion mobility spectrometer, where the police did not have reasonable suspicion that the package contained or constituted evidence of criminal activity.
|
|||||
| Garrison v. State, Court of Appeals, No. A-7775, No. 4576,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, May 29, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Fact that trial judge ruled against defendant's request to be appointed co-counsel did not demonstrate that trial judge was biased against defendant and was not grounds for disqualification of trial judge.
|
|||||
| Sage v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-7705, No. 4574,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, May 29, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where evidence that minor victim's injuries were more consistent with sexual penetration than other non-traumatic causes, evidence was sufficient for jury to convict defendant, and there was no error in denying motion for judgment of acquittal.
|
|||||
| Watson v. State, Court of Appeals, No. A-7878, No. 4575,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, May 29, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the defendant's custodial interrogation statements were not made in a "place of detention," the statements did not have to be recorded, and there was no error in admitting the unrecorded statements as evidence.
|
|||||
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. |
