 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Allen v. Alaska Oil & Gas Conservation Comm'n, Supreme Court No. S-11519, No. 6025,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, July 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inter alia, court did not err in finding oil and gas exploration lease royalty owner was not entitled to trial de novo under Alaska Stat. § 31.05.080 of appeal from oil and gas conservation commission's decision; inter alia, right to trial de novo was inconsistent with legislature's creation of independent commission with great technical expertise.
|
|||||
| Gilbert M. v. State, Supreme Court No. S-11364, No. 6029,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, July 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because grandfather did not have standing to appeal the termination of his daughter's parental rights to his grandchild, whether due to his relationship to the grandchild, his purported status as an Indian custodian, or his relationship to the daughter, court declined to consider his challenges. Rest of his appeal was moot due to his incarceration.
|
|||||
| J & S Servs., Inc. v. Tomter, Supreme Court No. S-11375, No. 6024,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, July 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Exclusive remedy provision of Alaska Procurement Code, Alaska Stat. § 36.30.005 et seq., barred unsuccessful contract bidder's claims of unfair scoring against department of natural resources, but did not necessarily bar claims against official in charge of the contract bidding process as an individual thus, dismissal of that claim was improper.
|
|||||
| Pederson v. Barnes, Supreme Court No. S-11621, No. 6023,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, July 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court erred in allowing punitive damages, Alaska Stat. § 09.17.020, against attorneys where there was no evidence that the attorneys acted with reckless indifference to the ward's rights, that they had actual knowledge of the guardian's wrongdoing, or that the attorneys attempted to avoid knowledge of the guardian's misconduct.
|
|||||
| Sengupta v. Univ. of Alaska, Supreme Court No. S-11805, No. 6026,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, July 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Superior court had not erred by granting summary judgment to a university in previously terminated tenured professor's First Amendment claim that university retaliated against him by not rehiring him because he had not shown adverse employment action that refusal to rehire him was substantially motivated by his prior criticisms of the university.
|
|||||
| Slwooko v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8747, No. 2055,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, July 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was not in custody for Miranda purposes when interview began because trial court judge could reasonably conclude that, despite defendant's hesitation at the door to the police station, she did in fact still wish to speak to the police and she freely chose to go into the building and begin her interview with the officers.
|
|||||
| Solomon v. Interior Reg'l Hous. Auth., Supreme Court No. S-11665, No. 6028,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, July 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was improperly granted to a former employer in a retaliation case based on the two-year limitation period in Alaska Stat. § 09.10.070(a) because equitable tolling applied; the employer had notice, no prejudice was shown, and the employee acted reasonably and in good faith by filing a federal case first.
|
|||||
| Staudenmaier v. Municipality of Anchorage , Supreme Court No. S-11446, No. 6027,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, July 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner sought approval of initiative petitions, relating to municipality's utilities' sale. Clerk properly rejected petitions because they violated prohibition of Alaska Const. art. XI, § 7 against appropriations-related initiatives. Municipality's charter provision, which ostensibly authorized this type of initiative, was void at inception.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
