 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Cooper v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9738, No. 5394,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, October 15, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a sexual assault case, under Alaska Stat. §§ 11.41.410(a)(1), 11.41.436(a)(1), 11.41.438(a)(1), a prosecutor's comment on reasonable doubt in terms of the standard that ordinary people would apply in making decisions on their affairs such as buying a house was not plain error because the judge correctly instructed the jury on reasonable doubt.
|
|||||
| Faulk v. Kenai Peninsula Borough, Bd. of Equalization, Supreme Court No. S-12729, No. 1316,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, October 15, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Board of equalization had a reasonable basis to uphold a valuation of $ 1.242 million for a condominium complex under Alaska Stat. § 29.45.110 because the owner's evidence only indicated an offer to buy the complex for $ 1 million, but the board provided evidence of the assessor's analysis of the property, and detailed descriptions of the units.
|
|||||
| Galloway v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9698, No. 5393,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, October 15, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's argument that trial court erred by admitting his blood test result administered by a hospital without allowing him to fully voir dire a hospital witness failed; because defendant had a tactical reason for not objecting to admission of the blood test result, he did not show trial court plainly erred when it admitted the evidence.
|
|||||
| Alford v. State, Supreme Court No. S-12644, No. 6315,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, October 16, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Application of the recapture requirement of former Alaska Stat. § 39.35.150(b) to early retirees' benefits from their first employment with the state did not violate Alaska Const. art. XII, § 7, and did not violate Alaska Stat. § 39.35.520(b)'s prohibition against adjustments.
|
|||||
| Bauer v. State, Supreme Court No. S-12789, No. 6316,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, October 16, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An inmate's appeal was not moot if he was entitled to greater relief through appeal than the Department of Corrections had already provided by reducing an original disciplinary incident report to an informational report in the inmate's file because the report might impact the inmate's ability to progress to a lower security institution.
|
|||||
| Capolicchio v. Levy, Supreme Court No. S-12475, No. 6318,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, October 16, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While a trial court was not required to notify a pro se litigant of his right to file an opposition to a motion for summary judgment where the litigant filed nothing, if the pro se litigant had filed a defective opposition, the trial court would have been required to notify him of the defect and advise him of the means by which to cure the defect.
|
|||||
| Ferguson v. Ferguson, Supreme Court No. S-12837, No. 6317,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, October 16, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The denial of a wife's motion to modify a child support agreement entered into between the wife and husband was proper because the parties' prior agreement contemplated the wife's current circumstances and the wife had already received the maximum amount of child support available under Alaska R. Civ. P. 90.3.
|
|||||
| Haywood v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-10026, No. 2187,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, October 16, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alaska Stat. § 28.33.140 did not allow revocation of a commercial driver's license for a conviction involving a non-commercial vehicle; because the statute was ambiguous about whether or not a commercial driver's license could be revoked after a conviction for driving a private vehicle under the influence, it was construed in defendant's favor.
|
|||||
| State v. Bourdon, Court of Appeals No. A-9950, No. 2188,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, October 16, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Post-conviction relief was properly granted in a case where an inmate was seeking good time credit under Alaska Stat. § 33.20.010 because the definition of "correctional facility" was not limited to state-run facilities, and there was no discretion to withhold credit unless there was a showing of a violation of correctional facility rules.
|
|||||
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. |
