 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Spencer v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9250, No. 5115,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, September 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Despite defendant's contention that State did not properly show accuracy of breath machine in DUI trial, as required by Alaska Stat. § 28.40.060, argument was rejected because defendant failed to show how defendant was prejudiced by State's selection of particular breath machine.
|
|||||
| Westby v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8884, No. 5116,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, September 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a felony driving under the influence case under Alaska Stat. § 28.35.030, a trial judge was not mistaken in imposing consecutive sentences for misdemeanor crimes because they violated different societal interests, within the meaning of former Alaska Stat. § 12.55.025.
|
|||||
| City of Skagway v. Robertson, Supreme Court Nos. S-11702/S-11741, No. 6046,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, September 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court erred by finding that Skagway, Ak., Mun. Code Ordinance § 5.20.010 was unconstitutionally overbroad, First Amendment, because the ordinance applied only to commercial speech that did no more than propose a commercial transaction; it was limited solely to "commercial speech."
|
|||||
| King v. Carey, Supreme Court No. S-12124, No. 6048,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, September 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Superior court did not err in denying mother's motion to modify custody, pursuant to Alaska Stat. § 25.20.110(a), because she failed to demonstrate substantial change in circumstances. After raising issues about declining school performance and drug abuse for first time in reply to father's response, mother was not entitled to evidentiary hearing.
|
|||||
| Morgan v. Morgan, Supreme Court No. S-11728, No. 6047,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, September 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a post dissolution of marriage case, a court erred by granting a wife's motion for relief under Alaska R. Civ. P. 60(b) because she learned of the husband's pension in 2000, she did not move for relief until 2003, and she offered no explanation why her fear prevented her from moving for relief when she discovered the pension in 2000.
|
|||||
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. |
