 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Audrey H. v. State, Supreme Court No. S-12858, No. 6286,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, July 18, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Mother's rights to her children were properly terminated under Alaska Stat. ¿ 47.10.088 because (1) they were children in need of aid; and (2) although office of children's services made reasonable efforts to reunify the family, discontinuing services was in the children's best interests since the mother was unwilling to participate in treatment.
|
|||||
| Black v. Municipality of Anchorage, Supreme Court No. S-12639, No. 6287,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, July 18, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A city could tax an owner for his condominium unit and for the limited common element attached to his unit under Alaska Stat. ¿ 34.08.720 because as a limited common element the land under and around the owner's condominium unit formed a part of his interest in the common elements.
|
|||||
| State Dep't of Corr. v. Lundy, Court of Appeals Nos. A-9493, A-9494, and A-9836, No. 2176,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, July 18, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Superior court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to decide in its sentencing orders the issue of whether defendants had a constitutional right to receive sex offender treatment while in prison under Alaska Const. art. I, ¿ 12. The issue could be brought in a civil lawsuit against the DOC, not in an Alaska R. Crim. P. 35(a) motion.
|
|||||
| Nevitt v. Provost, Supreme Court No. S-12603, No. 1309,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, July 23, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An appeal from the denial of domestic violence protective orders in a divorce proceeding was moot because the petitioning husband had already had a thorough review of the issues raised in his first petition and because all of the specifically tailored relief granted in connection with his second petition already had expired.
|
|||||
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. |
