 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| In re Adoption of Erin G., Supreme Court No. S-11929, No. 6032,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, August 4, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court properly dismissed a father's petition to set aside an adoption under the Indian Child Welfare Act because Alaska's one-year statute of limitations, Alaska Stat. § 25.23.140, applied; it provided an appropriate balance between the important federal rights of Indian tribes and families and the best interests of adopted children.
|
|||||
| State v. Herrmann, Court of Appeals No. A-8977, No. 2058,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, August 4, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While some provisions of pre-2005 sentencing law did not comply with right to jury trial under Sixth Amendment as interpreted in Blakely, flaws did not affect defendant's sentencing, where the State could use defendant's undisputed prior convictions to prove aggravators, Alaska Stat. § 12.55.155(c)(8) and (21), without submitting them to a jury.
|
|||||
| Bluel v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9371, No. 5102,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, August 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions for driving without valid license, in violation of Alaska Stat. § 28.15.011(b), and driving without proof of insurance, in violation of Alaska Stat. § 28.22.019(a), were upheld where officer had probable cause to stop him for a traffic violation; officer observed sparks and flames coming out of tailpipe on defendant's truck.
|
|||||
| Ferguson v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8711, No. 5100,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, August 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence supported defendant's first-degree assault conviction under Alaska Stat. § 11.41.200(a) based on finding that he inflicted serious physical injury on his companion by kicking her with steel-toed boots where defendant's daughter and inn owner testified that they saw him kick her and medical testimony showed her fracture was not from a fall.
|
|||||
| Henry v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8933, No. 5101,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, August 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When trooper allegedly discovered defendant was manufacturing homebrew, yet trooper failed to preserve evidence, evidence would have been discoverable pursuant to Alaska R. Crim. P. 16. Trial court did not abuse its discretion, however, because it decided that jury instruction was appropriate sanction rather than dismissal of indictment.
|
|||||
| Lampkin v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8760, No. 2059,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, August 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Double jeopardy prohibition was not violated by defendant's convictions for possession of drugs and promotion of contraband because Alaska Stat. § 11.71.040(a)(3)(A), Alaska Stat. § 11.71.050(a)(3)(A), and Alaska Stat. § 11.56.375(a)(3) were separate crimes involving separate societal interests and were not greater and lesser-included offenses.
|
|||||
| Lee v. State, Supreme Court No. S-11396, No. 6033,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, August 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State brought suit against business person, alleging violations of Alaska's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act. Superior court did not err in granting State's motion for summary judgment and imposing sanctions and penalties, pursuant to Alaska R. Civ. P. 37, because business person willfully failed to comply with discovery requests.
|
|||||
| Odom v. Odom, Supreme Court Nos. S-11905/S-11925, No. 6034,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, August 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Custody award was within discretion of superior court, which relied under Alaska Stat. § 25.24.150(c) on the fact that wife had been children's primary caregiver full-time and was excellent mother. The award of the family home to wife was proper in that children had lived their entire lives in the home.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
