 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bachner Co. v. State, Supreme Court No. S-11714, No. 1255,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, June 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because Alaska Admin. Code tit. 2, ¿ 12.260's treatment of the Alaska business preference did not lack a reasonable basis and was neither arbitrary or capricious, it was consistent with the basic purposes of Alaska. Stat. ¿ 36.30.250.
|
|||||
| Beasley v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9026, No. 5083,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, June 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence established that victim was aware of defendant's dangerous driving and that he perceived the risk that he might suffer imminent serious physical injury on account of defendant's drunk driving as he told police that he was glad to be alive; thus, defendant's third-degree assault conviction, Alaska Stat. ¿ 11.41.220(a)(1)(A), was affirmed.
|
|||||
| Dancer v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8751, No. 5084,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, June 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was sufficient to support defendant's kidnapping conviction under Alaska Stat. ¿ 11.41.300(a)(1)(C) because he forcibly moved and confined his girlfriend repeatedly. By moving his girlfriend from place to place, especially by taking her into a bathroom and later taking her into the woods, defendant made it easier to assault her.
|
|||||
| Marker v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8608, No. 5082,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, June 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Equipment violation and failure to wear a seatbelt qualified as valid reasons for a stop. Also, it was permissible under Fourth Amendment to order defendant (a passenger) out of the car. After ordering him out of the car, officer saw cocaine in plain view and properly arrested him. Thus, trial court did not err in denying his motion to suppress.
|
|||||
| Ohler v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8900, No. 5081,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, June 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because inmate had record of four prior DWI convictions, trial court did not improperly use two of his prior convictions to convict him of felony DWI and two as aggravating factors. Also, because of Blakely exception for prior convictions, trial court properly found aggravating factor Alaska Stat. ¿ 12.55.155(c)(21) without submitting it to a jury.
|
|||||
| Pooley v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8978, No. 5085,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, June 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a sentence imposed in violation of Blakely was an "illegal sentence" for purposes of Alaska R. Crim. P. 35(a), defendant was entitled to pursue his Blakely claim in a Rule 35(a) motion; hence, a trial court erred in denying defendant's Rule 35(a) motion on the ground that he could not raise such an argument in a Rule 35(a) motion.
|
|||||
| Lakloey, Inc. v. Univ. of Alaska, Supreme Court No. S-11624, No. 6019,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, June 23, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a contract bid dispute between university and a construction company, construction company submitted its bid before university issued addendum. Construction company was not entitled to bid preparation costs because, although procurement officer violated Alaska Stat. ¿ 36.30.130(a), construction company did not allege or prove damages.
|
|||||
| Stevens v. Borough, Court of Appeals Nos. A-9134/A-9391, No. 2051,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, June 23, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Convictions were upheld under the noise ordinance in Matanuska-Susitna, Alaska, Borough Code ¿ 8.52.015(A) because it was not overbroad or vague in violation of the First Amendment; moreover, the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions based on the testimony of a private investigator and nearby neighbors.
|
|||||
| Winterrowd v. Municipality of Anchorage, Court of Appeals Nos. A-9233 & A-9234, No. 2050,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, June 23, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although defendant invoked his privilege against self-incrimination, he could not lawfully refuse the police officers' demands that he produce his vehicle registration and proof of insurance because defendant's traffic stops did not constitute "custody" for Miranda purposes.
|
|||||
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. |
