 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Doe v. State, Supreme Court No. S-12150, No. 6290,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, July 25, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where appellant was convicted and sentenced for sex offenses before the Alaska Sex Offender Registration Act was enacted, application of the registration requirement under Alaska Stat. § 12.63.100(3) added punishment beyond what could be imposed when the crime was committed in violation of the ex post facto clause of Alaska Const. art. I, § 15.
|
|||||
| Hewitt v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9717, No. 2177,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, July 25, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a felony DUI case, trial judge did not abuse his discretion when he denied defendant's request to dismiss the entire jury venire after judge, by mistake, started to read the portion of the indictment alleging that defendant had prior DUI convictions, where judge cured his mistake by simply telling the jurors that he had read the wrong thing.
|
|||||
| Hooper v. Hooper, Supreme Court No. S-12356, No. 6292,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, July 25, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err by awarding the wife 67 % of marital estate after discussing factors of Alaska Stat. § 25.24.160(a)(4) because it found that husband earned two and a half times what wife earned and her need to keep the family home for the parties' children. It found she had no financial reserves after husband failed to pay mortgage on home.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9800, No. 2178,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, July 25, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although defendant complained that his attorney had asked to continue the sentencing hearing for five weeks without consulting him, the trial judge could reasonably conclude that defendant had not raised the kind of grave complaint about his attorney's performance that would have triggered the judge's duty to conduct a more thorough inquiry.
|
|||||
| Parson v. State, Supreme Court No. S-12486, No. 6288,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, July 25, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the Alaska Human Rights Commission's closure of an employee's complaint after an informal investigation was not an acquittal of the state agency and did not contain the required adjudicative elements to give rise to any preclusive effect under Alaska Stat. § 18.80.280, the employee was not barred from filing suit in superior court.
|
|||||
| Tillmon v. Tillmon, Supreme Court No. S-12685, No. 6289,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, July 25, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a father contended that a trial court erred in refusing to award shared physical custody, an appellate court deferred to the trial court's determination that it was in the children's best interests to reside primarily with their mother during the school year; the father was obligated to pay child support according to 90.3(a).
|
|||||
| Veco Alaska, Inc. v. State, Supreme Court No. S-12163, No. 6291,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, July 25, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The Workers' Compensation Board's finding that the employer had not produced written records from which it could have been inferred that the employer had prior knowledge of the employee's qualifying impairment was improper because the Board applied a too-restrictive standard in evaluating whether the written-record requirement was satisfied.
|
|||||
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. |
