 |
|
 |
|
|
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 Civ. Liberties Union v. State, Supreme Court No. S-10459, No. 5950,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, October 28, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Benefits programs facially discriminated against same-sex domestic partners by covering married public employees but not domestic partners because same-sex couples were barred from marriage and thus precluded from eligibility. Policy was not substantially related to government interests and violated equal protection under Alaska Const. art. I, § 1.
|
|||||
| Nevers v. State, Supreme Court No. S-11399, No. 5952,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, October 28, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Exclusionary rule was inapplicable to driver's license revocations as it would hamper legitimate efforts to keep drunk drivers off roads while adding minimal deterrence to unlawful police action; consideration of evidence obtained in violation of Fourth Amendment and Alaska Const. art. I, §§ 14 and 22 did not undermine procedural fairness.
|
|||||
| Reust v. Alaska Petroleum Contrs., Inc., Supreme Court Nos. S-10910/S-10919, No. 5951,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, October 28, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where applicant was hired, then fired the next morning and jury found that he was retaliated against for testifying in former litigation against that employer, evidence was sufficient to support punitive damages and while employer did not violate existing wrongful termination statutes, witness retaliation was against public policy of Alaska.
|
|||||
| Charley v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8923, No. 5017,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, November 2, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court properly dismissed appellant's post-conviction relief application as untimely, and the trial court was not required to determine, before dismissing the application, whether his counsel performed competently in the absence of a conclusion that a non-frivolous argument on behalf of his client could not have been made.
|
|||||
| Gaston v. Gaston, Supreme Court Nos. S-11395/S-11425, No. 1226,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, November 2, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Property division of unmarried cohabitants was affirmed because their business was created by the male cohabitant's efforts, which the female cohabitant understood as owned in common, and was for a time indistinguishable from the couple's joint business; the business was joint property.
|
|||||
| TRP, LLC v. SEACAL, LLC, Supreme Court No. S-11326, No. 1227,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, November 2, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case involving a claim of breach of a contract to sell 571.7 acres of land, the trial court did not err in entering summary judgment against the buyer on the question whether it had breached the agreement; the earnest money agreement did not require the seller to guarantee unblocked road access to the property.
|
|||||
| Guerrero v. Alaska Hous. Fin. Corp., Supreme Court No. S-11024, No. 5954,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, November 4, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Discretionary function immunity did not bar a claim against the department of transportation on behalf of a child who was injured crossing the street because under Alaska Stat. § 19.10.040 and the federal standards that it incorporated, the department had an operational duty to provide adequate signs to protect the public from traffic hazards.
|
|||||
| Moore v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8584, No. 2016,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, November 4, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant entered the victim's apartment and tried to rape her, the evidence of an unlawful entry was sufficient to support his burglary conviction under Alaska Stat. §§ 11.46.300(a), 11.46.310(a). The trial court erred by refusing to merge his convictions for attempted first-degree sexual assault and attempted second-degree sexual assault.
|
|||||
| State v. Morton, Supreme Court No. S-11672, No. 5953,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, November 4, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Alaska Stat. § 39.35.680(26), employee was eligible for work disability benefits if he could not perform old job or comparable job made available by Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) employer, but found a job outside PERS; the rule that an employee could not earn 75 percent of former salary was contrary to statute.
|
|||||
| Northcut v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9106, No. 5018,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, November 9, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sentence of 6 years was not clearly mistaken as defendant was a first felony offender convicted of a class B felony--his sentencing was governed by benchmark ranges set forth in State v. Jackson; aggravating factors under Alaska Stat. § 12.55.155(c)(19) and (c)(21) were enough to call for a term within range for exceptionally aggravated offenses.
|
|||||
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. |
