 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Alpine Indus. v. Feyk, Supreme Court No. S-9169, No. 5410,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, May 11, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A public health official who authored an article critical of a set of air filters was acting in her official capacity even though writing the article was a discretionary act, and therefore, official was entitled to official immunity from suit.
|
|||||
| Buckwalter v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-7303, No. 1742,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, May 11, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the offense of a scheme to defraud five or more persons required a finding that appellant intended to defraud five or more persons, it could not be aggravated because appellant knew more than one victim was involved.
|
|||||
| Heaps v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-7472, No. 1741,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, May 11, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Assault conviction was affirmed where photographs of house, offered to show girlfriend's propensity for violence, were deemed overly prejudicial, and it was not necessary to instruct the jury on any possible lesser included offense.
|
|||||
| Hoffman Constr. Co. v. United States Fabrication, Supreme Court No. S-9116, No. 5411,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, May 11, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Supreme court modified summary judgments related to contractual duties to defend and indemnify, between a hospital, general contractor, and subcontractor, for asbestos injuries to subcontractor's employees on the hospital worksite.
|
|||||
| Peter v. Schumacher Enters., Supreme Court No. S-9177, No. 5409, Supreme Court No. S-9303,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, May 11, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether a special relationship existed between appellant and her insurance agent, and whether respondents offered statutory limits of UM/UIM coverage; thus, summary judgment was improper.
|
|||||
| Petranovich v. Matanuska Elec. Ass'n, Supreme Court No. S-9346, No. 5406,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, May 11, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Electrician was an independent contractor. He failed to prove that company assumed a duty to ensure his safety, or that it exercised sufficient control over his work to be held liable for his injuries.
|
|||||
| Tall v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-7566, No. 1739,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, May 11, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A court declined to require advance notice by the court of its intent to dismiss a post-conviction relief application when the court granted a dismissal in response to a motion by the State and for the reasons advanced in that motion.
|
|||||
| Wolfe v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-7403, No. 1740,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, May 11, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Given appellant's size, weight, and physical actions against the student, the jury reasonably concluded that appellant was aware of, and disregarded, the risk of physical harm; thus, evidence supported his conviction.
|
|||||
| Wright v. Wright, Supreme Court No. S-9450, No. 5405,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, May 11, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Strict adherence to procedure of Alaska rule on motions to modify child support was required. Child support could not be modified retroactively to any date earlier than date of filing of motion in strict compliance with that rule.
|
|||||
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. |
