 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Brannon v. Cont'l Cas. Co., Supreme Court No. S-11505, No. 6016,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, June 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Claim that real estate broker's insurer breached its duty to defend accrued when insurer notified broker it would not defend him against purchasers' claims; however, running of the limitations statute, Alaska Stat. § 09.10.053, was equitably tolled until underlying litigation was complete, and purchasers' claim against broker was not untimely.
|
|||||
| Fairbanks North Star Borough v. Interior Cabaret, Hotel, Rest. & Retailers Ass'n, Supreme Court No. S-11612, No. 6017,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, June 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In action by nonprofit organization challenging validity of sales tax on alcoholic beverages, superior court abused its discretion in denying a borough's motion for attorney fees under Alaska R. Civ. P. 82 on the ground that organization was a public interest litigant where organization's members had an economic incentive to prevent the sales tax.
|
|||||
| McLaughlin v. Lougee, Supreme Court No. S-11423, No. 6015,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, June 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of action for contribution was reversed where court concluded that 1989 initiative did not bar defendant's post-judgment separate action against third party that sought to allocate share of defendant's fault and liability to third party.
|
|||||
| Callahan v. Dye, Supreme Court Nos. S-11390/S-11440, No. 1252,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, June 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A finding in favor of the former girlfriend and against her former boyfriend was appropriate because many factors supported a finding that the parties implicitly agreed that the girlfriend's lifetime needs would be met to a reasonable extent including the duration of the relationship and the fact that the couple presented themselves as married.
|
|||||
| Gladden v. City of Dillingham, Supreme Court No. S-11367, No. 1253,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, June 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court had not erred in granting city summary judgment in its suit against taxpayer to collect unpaid sales and personal property taxes and business-licensing fees; inter alia, after making its initial disclosures under Alaska R. Civ. P. 26, city had no duty to provide additional discovery as taxpayer had never made "discernable" discovery request.
|
|||||
| Kirkwood v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9306, No. 5078,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, June 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Following conviction for criminal trespass, sentencing judge did not err in ordering restitution for doors that were damaged by police while defendant was in custody because, under Alaska Stat. § 12.55.015(a)(5) and Alaska Stat. § 12.55.045(a), judge had authority to order restitution and police search was foreseeable consequence of illegal entry.
|
|||||
| Latham v. Alaska Pub. Defender Agency, Supreme Court No. S-11494, No. 1254,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, June 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment denying class certification and dismissing appellant's action against numerous state officials and employees challenging 1995 amendments to Alaska Stat. § 12.55.120(a) (1986) was affirmed because appellant could not represent the class as a pro se plaintiff and because res judicata precluded review of his substantive claims.
|
|||||
| State v. Beltz, Court of Appeals No. A-9236, No. 5079,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, June 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a dispute as to sex offender registration requirement, pursuant to Alaska Sex Offender Registration Act, Alaska Stat. § 12.63, a superior court's order, which did not require defendant's compliance with statute, was in error because registration requirement was not punishment, and requirement did not violate ex post facto laws.
|
|||||
| Domke v. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co., Supreme Court No. S-10885, No. 6018,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, June 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred by denying employee's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict under Alaska R. Civ. P. 50 because the record compelled a finding that the customer was vicariously liable for its employee's tortious interference with the employee's contract, as the customer's employee was acting within the scope of his employment.
|
|||||
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. |
