 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Forshee v. Forshee, Supreme Court No. S-11751, No. 6044,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, September 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ample evidence supported the trial court's determination that former husband executed a quitclaim deed of out-of-state investment property to his brother in order to protect his share in the real estate from the threat of division. Former husband's decision appeared to have been either a willful waste of marital assets or a sham transaction.
|
|||||
| Ginn-Williams v. Williams, Supreme Court No. S-11927, No. 6043,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, September 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In child custody dispute, mother did not raise issue of father's alleged domestic violence until she moved for reconsideration, attempting to invoke Alaska Stat. § 25.24.150. Trial court did not err in refusing to reconsider custody agreement because mother failed to present evidence of changed circumstances affecting children's best interests.
|
|||||
| Watega v. Watega, Supreme Court No. S-11652, No. 6041,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, September 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In divorcing couple's dispute over home sale, trial court erred in ordering compelled sale because, while trial court did have authority to force sale over wife's objection, that authority was required to be exercised sparingly and only for pressing reasons.
|
|||||
| Young v. Embley, Supreme Court No. S-11584, No. 6042,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, September 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A junior lienholder had the right to cure a default under Alaska Stat. § 34.20.070(b) because the right to cure extended to persons outside of the obligor; therefore, a remand was necessary to determine if an equitable lien in certain property was shown.
|
|||||
| McCurdy v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8809, No. 5114,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, September 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's conclusion that police would have inevitably discovered heroin delivered to defendant through predictable investigative processes was supported by the findings. It was apparent that, in every practical sense, police would have discovered heroin had defendant not pulled packet out from underneath refrigerator with the tip of his shoe.
|
|||||
| Rhoda W. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Supreme Court No. S-12116, No. 1261,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, September 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In termination of mother's parental rights, superior court's findings were supported by evidence because, under recent changes to Alaska Stat. § 47.10.086, standard of proof changed and evidence presented was clear and convincing that State had made reasonable efforts to reunite mother and child.
|
|||||
| Melendrez v. Melendrez, Supreme Court No. S-12198, No. 6045,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, September 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In modification of child custody, mother failed to show trial court abused discretion and clear error when superior court awarded custody of four children to their father because superior court made analysis of factors of children's best interests under Alaska Stat. § 25.24.150(c)(1)-(9).
|
|||||
| State v. Dague, Court of Appeals No. A-8914, No. 2062,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, September 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a manslaughter case, the double jeopardy clause did not prohibit a second jury trial to address the aggravator under Alaska Stat. § 12.55.155(c)(5) as such a trial was not a second prosecution; further, the aggravating factor was not an element of defendant's crime for purposes of Alaska Const. art. I, § 8, requiring a jury trial under Blakely.
|
|||||
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. |
