 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Dayton v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8791, No. 2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, August 26, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because trial court was authorized under Alaska Stat. ¿ 12.55.125(k)(2), to sentence defendant to four years' imprisonment with two years suspended for second-degree sexual assault even in absence of aggravating factors, defendant's Blakely attack on sentencing procedures was moot.
|
|||||
| Elton H. v. Naomi R., Supreme Court No. S-11531, No. 5935,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, August 26, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where trial court awarded physical custody to a non-parent over the objections of a parent, and failed to make findings by clear and convincing evidence either that the parent was unfit or that the welfare of the children required the children to remain with the non-parent, the order awarding shared physical custody violated Evans.
|
|||||
| Grasser v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8867, No. 2004,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, August 26, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In defendant's sentence for assault, unlawful contact, violating a protective order, and its conditions, a magistrate did not clearly err in requiring defendant to attend a rehabilitative program in Ketchikan because defendant's attendance did not impose an unreasonable financial burden.
|
|||||
| Hymes v. Deramus, Supreme Court No. S-11562, No. 5936,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, August 26, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate and his wife brought a suit against prison medical personnel, alleging, among other things, medical malpractice and loss of consortium. Trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant inmate and wife a continuance to obtain expert's affidavit because inmate and his wife met three criteria of Alaska R. Civ. P. 56(f).
|
|||||
| Slwooko v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8747, No. 5003,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, August 31, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a murder case, the trial judge did not make any finding on whether defendant was in custody when she made incriminating statements. The appellate court concluded that the issue of whether defendant was in custody was important; it was necessary for the appellate court's review for the trial judge to decide this issue.
|
|||||
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. |
