 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Clinton R. v. State, Supreme Court No. S-11662, No. 1222,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, August 10, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Father's parental rights were properly terminated under Alaska Stat. § 47.10.088, as evidence that he failed to remedy his alcohol abuse and failed to take steps to find his son housing or to participate in counseling supported court's conclusion that he failed to remedy conditions that led to the finding that his son was a child in need of aid.
|
|||||
| Dell v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8389, No. 4998,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, August 10, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was unreasonable for the police to conclude that defendant's girlfriend had the requisite authority to consent to a warrantless search of defendant's property as it was sufficiently ambiguous that the police acted unreasonably when they chose to forego applying for a search warrant and instead decided to rely on the girlfriend's consent.
|
|||||
| Crane v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9291, No. 2000,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, August 12, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A finding that the petitioner's representation by an attorney in Alaska satisfied his Sixth Amendment rights was proper pursuant to Alaska Bar R. 4, § 4 and R. 5, § 3, where all of the attorneys licensed to practice law in Alaska were in fact "counselors" as that term was understood at common law.
|
|||||
| Grohs v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8753, No. 2001,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, August 12, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant failed to show that his traffic stop was pretextual, and when his maximum sentence hinged upon his prior convictions under Alaska Stat. § 12.55.155(c)(21), and he did not dispute the fact of those prior convictions, the trial court could rely on the prior convictions without submitting them to a jury in accordance with Blakely.
|
|||||
| Laidlaw Transit, Inc. v. Anchorage Sch. Dist. , Supreme Court No. S-10796, No. 5931,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, August 12, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Transportation company's civil action against school board was properly converted to administrative appeal trial court was not required to grant request for trial de novo to resolve appeal of confirmation of award of contract to another proposer because § 27.085(g) established adjudicative process for administrative review.
|
|||||
| State v. Dupier, Supreme Court No. S-11140, No. 5932,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, August 12, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where Alaska Admin. Code tit. 20, § 05.110(c) (2001) and former Alaska Stat. § 16.05.675 were in issue, as to landing halibut without State permits, State did not exceed authority when it required fishers to possess interim-use permits. Further, federal law did not preempt State's permit requirements, and same did not violate federal constitution.
|
|||||
| State v. Green Party of Alaska, Supreme Court No. S-11272, No. 5933,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, August 12, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alaska Stat. §§ 15.25.010, 014, and .060, which required each political party to have its own primary ballot on which only its candidates appeared, violated Alaska Const. art. I, § 5 because the prohibition on combined ballots substantially burdened the parties' associational rights; and State's interests were insufficient to justify prohibition.
|
|||||
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. |
