 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Crumpler v. State ex rel. Armstrong, Supreme Court No. S-11428, No. 5927,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, July 22, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in retroactively modifying father's child support obligation to date he was served with notice of Child Support Enforcement Division's modification petition as provided in Alaska R. Civ. P. 90.3(h)(2) because father failed to establish good cause for selecting different date and evidence showed he actually received notice.
|
|||||
| Degrate v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8877, No. 1995,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, July 22, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The sentencing judge had no authority under Alaska Stat. §§ 12.55.015, 33.30.061, or 33.30.065 to order the Alaska Commissioner of Corrections to allow defendant to serve a term of imprisonment by house arrest and electronic monitoring.
|
|||||
| George Easley Co. v. Estate of John Lindekugel, Supreme Court No. S-10851, AWCB Case No. 198100384/ 198101012, Consolidated No. 5925,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, July 22, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A second employer was not entitled to a modification of a workers' compensation award based on settlement offsets under Alaska Stat. § 23.30.130(a) because the errors turned upon alleged mistakes of law, rather than mistakes of fact. Further, the medical evidence was insufficient to rebut the presumption of compensability.
|
|||||
| Haag v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8687, No. 1996,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, July 22, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a robbery case, sentences violated Blakley, U.S. Const. amend. VI, where the issue of whether defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the victim was incapable of resistance required the finder of fact to assess the extent of his physical incapacity and then assess his ability to resist in comparison to a typical robbery victim.
|
|||||
| Lowell v. Hayes, Supreme Court No. S-10967, No. 5924,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, July 22, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defamation action was properly dismissed where former assemblyman was public figure for purposes of action in that he was in on petition to consolidate city borough government, and no actual malice was shown in comments published by defendants because defendants believed assemblyman had not complied with law.
|
|||||
| Maldonado v. Bailey (In the Matter of the Estate of Maldonado), Supreme Court No. S-11067, No. 5926,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, July 22, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because wrongful death proceeds were not property owned by a spouse at the time of a decedent's death, they were not includable in an augmented estate under Alaska Stat. § 13.12.207, 13.12.203 for purposes of determining a wife's elective share under Alaska Stat. § 13.12.202(a).
|
|||||
| Peltola v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8925, No. 1994,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, July 22, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant's sentence was less than two years of unsuspended time, the trial court did not need to find statutory aggravating factors specified in Alaska Stat. § 12.55.155 or extraordinary circumstances under Alaska Stat. § 12.55.165 to impose such a sentence and Blakely only applied when defendant's sentence exceeded the statutory maximum.
|
|||||
| State v. Anderson, Court of Appeals No. A-8756, No. 1993,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, July 22, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Police did not violate Miranda by sending an informant to speak to defendant in jail because defendant was free to refuse to meet with the informant, he was free to terminate their conversations at any time, and therefore, the tactic did not violate defendant's constitutional rights, Alaska Const. art. I, §§ 7, 9.
|
|||||
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. |
