 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Harris v. Ahtna, Inc., Supreme Court No. S-11769, No. 6311,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, September 26, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a corporation's suit alleging breach of fiduciary duty by its former president, the president failed to prove that certain transactions were proper under the statute governing related party transactions, Alaska Stat. ¿ 10.06.478, because the corporation established that the transactions were unfair by clear and convincing evidence.
|
|||||
| Hoekzema v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9890, No. 2185,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, September 26, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Superior court erred when it found that defendant who was convicted of possessing 31 grams of marijuana with intent to deliver, in violation of Alaska Stat. ¿ 11.71.040(a)(2), was not eligible for application of the mitigating factor permitted by Alaska Stat. ¿ 12.55.155(d)(13), i.e., that his offense involved only a small quantity of drugs.
|
|||||
| In re W.A., Supreme Court No. S-12673, No. 6309,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, September 26, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Permanent guardian was appointed under Alaska Stat. ¿ 13.26.113 where a court visitor, expert medical professionals, and family provided evidence that a brother was unable to provide the essential requirements for his physical health and safety; inter alia, he was cared for by family, never had a bank account, and spent his money on alcohol.
|
|||||
| Mitchell v. Teck Cominco Alaska Inc., Supreme Court No. S-12530, No. 6310,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, September 26, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Non-moving party was entitled to a continuance under Alaska R. Civ. P. 56(f) because he requested one, had not been dilatory in conducting discovery, and provided an adequate reason for needing additional time in noting that the trial court's conversion of a dismissal motion under Alaska R. Civ. P. 12 occurred before discovery had been completed.
|
|||||
| State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Dowdy, Supreme Court Nos. S-12687/12698, No. 6312,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, September 26, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Decedent's parents were not entitled to coverage for severe emotional distress because underinsured motorist policy language affording additional per-person coverage to persons injured in the same accident as another person could not be construed to refer to injuries that resulted from viewing a dead or injured person away from an accident scene.
|
|||||
| Worland v. Worland, Supreme Court No. S-12746, No. 6313,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, September 26, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a divorce case, a superior court did not abuse its discretion in enforcing a settlement agreement entered into by the parties because a former husband failed to establish coercion or duress; there were lengthy settlement negotiations, the husband was represented by counsel, and he affirmatively participated in the settlement process.
|
|||||
| Powell v. Powell, Supreme Court No. S-12532, No. 6314,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, October 10, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The denial of the wife's Alaska R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from the property division in a divorce was proper because her contention that she only accepted a property division because the husband threatened to disclose e-mails documenting her affair to her family was without merit since the e-mails demonstrated a lack of fear or coercion.
|
|||||
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. |
