 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Alaska R.R. Corp. v. Native Village of Eklutna, Supreme Court No. S-11619, No. 6040,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, September 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a dispute between a native village and a railroad over operation of a quarry, superior court did not err in granting village's motion for summary judgment because railroad was required, pursuant to Alaska Stat. § 42.40.390, to apply for a conditional use permit before operating quarry.
|
|||||
| Blank v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9034, No. 2061,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, September 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alaska Stat. § 28.35.031 did not limit the use of portable breath test results to aiding in the decision whether to arrest a potentially intoxicated driver; defendant did not show statute provided that portable breath test was exclusively a preliminary breath test, nor was there legislative history to restrict portable devices to preliminary tests.
|
|||||
| Brotherton v. Brotherton, Supreme Court No. S-11852, No. 6039,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, September 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a divorce proceeding, the supreme court held that the superior court's decision to allow execution was well within its discretion and that waiting until the appeals process was exhausted before moving for execution of judgment provided a just and sufficient reason to excuse delay, as required by Alaska Stat. § 09.35.020.
|
|||||
| Int'l Seafoods of Alaska, Inc. v. Bissonette, Supreme Court No. S-11568, No. 6038,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, September 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A finding in favor of the class members in their breach of contract action against the company was proper because the superior court correctly certified the group of fishers as a class under Alaska R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b), correctly rejected the company's proposal to use a separate verdict form for each member, and correctly instructed the jury.
|
|||||
| Clark v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8890, No. 5112,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, September 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In trial for domestic assault, trial court erred in ruling defendant's objection to out-of-court statements was untimely because, under a Confrontation Clause analysis, objection was timely; at time of objection, victim who allegedly made challenged statements to hospital personnel was expected to testify.
|
|||||
| Cook v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9215, No. 5113,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, September 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the delay in bringing defendant to trial on charges of driving with a revoked license and failing to insure her vehicle was due to the unavailability of the State's witness and defendant's attorney, 100 days were tolled under Alaska R. Crim. P. 45. The district court did not err by denying her motion to dismiss for a speedy trial violation.
|
|||||
| Iverson v. Griffith, Supreme Court No. S-11843, No. 1260,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, September 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's decision to award child custody to child's father was proper because, pursuant to Alaska Stat. § 25.24.150 and the well-documented effects of domestic violence on children, supreme court could not conclude that superior court abused its discretion when it considered mother's boyfriend's alleged abusive acts towards mother.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
