 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Krushensky v. Farinas, Supreme Court Nos. S-12395/12416, No. 6296,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, August 8, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: QDROs which awarded former wife interests in former husband's retirement accounts improperly included qualified pre-retirement survivor annuities (QPSAs), since QDROs awarded separate interests to wife which were not reduced if husband died before retiring, and thus QPSAs gave wife more than intended interest in pre-retirement death benefits.
|
|||||
| Smith v. Stafford, Supreme Court No. S-12255, No. 6297,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, August 8, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A father's claims that a social worker failed to comply with Child in Need of Aid (CINA) procedures, which were set forth in Alaska Stat. ¿¿ 47.10.005-47.10.142, were not actionable because Alaska Stat. ¿ 47.10.960 precluded the father from relying on CINA statutes to prove that the social worker or her supervisor owed him any special duty of care.
|
|||||
| Holden v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-10073, No. 2179,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, August 15, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court lacked jurisdiction to hear inmate's appeal of decision that he was required to register as sex offender under Alaska Stat. ¿ 12.63.020 because decision being appealed was final decision issued by superior court in administrative appeal and thus, required appeal to Alaska Supreme Court under Alaska Stat. ¿ 22.05.015(c).
|
|||||
| Mattox v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9949, No. 2180,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, August 22, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of refusal to submit to breath test under Alaska Stat. ¿ 28.35.032(p) as (1) offer to submit to blood test did not satisfy his legal duty; (2) he refused to perform field sobriety tests, sign implied consent form; and submit to breath test; and (3) he refused opportunity for an independent chemical test.
|
|||||
| State v. Alaska State Emples. Ass'n, Supreme Court No. S-12686, No. 6298,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, August 22, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Action union filed against State of Alaska, seeking order compelling the State to comply with arbitrator's award ordering it to reinstate employee and pay back pay, was breach of contract action under Alaska Stat. ¿ 09.50.250, and Alaska Stat. ¿ 09.50.280 allowed superior court to award prejudgment interest from date arbitrator issued his decision.
|
|||||
| Stock v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9732, No. 2181,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, August 22, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Statements defendant made during holding cell interview, after he had exercised his right to remain silent, were admissible because officer scrupulously honored his right to cut off questioning since (1) defendant gave officer permission to enter holding cell, (2) he remembered his Miranda rights, and (3) he would decide which questions to answer.
|
|||||
| Martin v. Dieringer, Supreme Court No. S-12733, No. 1311,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, August 27, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A superior court's decision to not award attorney's fees and costs in a beneficiary's probate case against two co-trustees was proper because the beneficiary should have sought the fees in the case in which he incurred them and not as damages in a subsequent suit.
|
|||||
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. |
