 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| A.C. v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9396, No. 5239,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, July 5, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant's juvenile convictions were supported by sufficient direct and circumstantial evidence to prove he was an accomplice under Alaska Stat. § 11.16.110(2)(B) who helped a group of minors burglarize a home while the owner was away, burn the house down to destroy the evidence, and steal and strip the homeowner's truck for parts.
|
|||||
| Pazar v. Crooks, Supreme Court No. S-12363, No. 1280,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, July 5, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In appellants' quiet title action, when the trial court failed to establish an equitable lien in favor of appellee, the judgment was not a final judgment, and the trial court retained jurisdiction over the action. Thus, the trial court had the authority to create the equitable lien two years after the judgment.
|
|||||
| Peralta v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9620, No. 5238,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, July 5, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: At a robbery/theft trial, an officer was properly permitted to testify that defendant was a suspect in a fatal shooting; although it was evidence of other crimes under Alaska R. Evid. 404(b), it was admissible to prove defendant's state of mind or motive for his attempt to elude police by forcibly seizing a car and embarking on a high-speed chase.
|
|||||
| AT&T Alascom v. Orchitt, Supreme Court No. S-12058, No. 6139,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, July 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Worker claimed to have sustained injuries when he was exposed to radio frequency radiation as he was performing his job. Workers' Compensation Board did not abuse its discretion in deciding that an injured worker's claim was compensable because the board could rely on lay testimony from worker's co-workers along with medical evidence.
|
|||||
| Osborne v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8399, No. 2109,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, July 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was convicted of assault, kidnapping, and sexual assault. Trial court properly denied defendant's request for post-conviction DNA testing because defendant confessed to the offenses when he applied for parole, and there was considerable evidence that linked defendant to the offenses.
|
|||||
| State v. Manning, Supreme Court Nos. S-11170/S-11189, No. 6138,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, July 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Caribou hunter challenged regulation, Alaska Admin. Code tit. 5, § 92.070(b)(1), after he was denied Tier II subsistence hunting permit. Regulation did not comport with Alaska Constitution because game scoring ratio was not an accurate method to determine access to other game.
|
|||||
| DeNardo v. Corneloup, Supreme Court No. S-11703, No. 6140,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, July 13, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: All of a tenant's tort claims arising from the allegation that cigarette smoke emanating from a neighbor's apartment was making him ill were properly rejected where, inter alia, there was no evidence that the landlord had substantially disturbed the tenant's use of the land or that the neighbor had deliberately caused the smoke to contact him.
|
|||||
| Morgan v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9579, No. 2110,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, July 13, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion to suppress in driving under the influence trial was properly denied because the fact that a police trooper was on the lookout for potentially intoxicated drivers when he stopped defendant's vehicle for turning without a signal was irrelevant for Fourth Amendment purposes when the trooper followed reasonable police practices.
|
|||||
| Burke P. v. State, Supreme Court No. S-12347,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, July 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
