 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| B.R. v. Dep't of Corr., Supreme Court No. S-11438, No. 6057,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, September 29, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In suit against Alaska Department of Corrections, alleging inmate was sexually assaulted by department employee, dismissal was improper because it appeared from complaint that inmate asserted claim that department negligently breached a separate duty to protect inmates that was not barred by Alaska Stat. § 09.50.250(3), a tort-immunity statute.
|
|||||
| Bd. of Trs. v. Municipality of Anchorage, Supreme Court No. S-11893, Supreme Court No. S-11922, No. 6056,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, September 29, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In dispute between public employees' retirement system and municipality, requiring system's pension plan to absorb impact of municpality's grievance settlements was not unconstitutional, under Alaska Const. art. XII, § 7, because absorbing the impact did not change plan's basic operations or impair a vested right.
|
|||||
| Cooper v. Cooper, Supreme Court Nos. S-11566/S-11649, No. 6054,,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, September 29, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Wife alleged she saw husband, from whom wife sought divorce, at a mall. Superior court properly denied long-term protective order because merely appearing in protected person's sight was not "contacting" under Alaska Stat. § 18.66.100(c). Superior court erred in granting mutual restraining order because order had no independent basis.
|
|||||
| Jimerson v. Tetlin Native Corp., Supreme Court No. S-11757, No. 6050,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, September 29, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Settlement among Native corporation, directors, and shareholders that allowed land transfer and allowed shareholders to transfer shares of Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act's stock back to corporation in exchange for shares in new corporation was unenforceable because it contravened restrictions in 43 U.S.C.S. § 1606(h)(1)(B) on alienability.
|
|||||
| Kinn v. Alaska Sales & Serv., Supreme Court Nos. S-11748/S-11768, No. 6055,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, September 29, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Superior court properly confirmed arbitrator's award because the relationship that arbitrator had with buyer's counsel was not the type that could raise reasonable doubt as to his partiality where sellers failed to show "evident partiality" under Alaska Stat. § 09.43.120(a)(2), such as a financial interest or other loyalty to the buyer's attorney.
|
|||||
| Murray v. Ledbetter, Supreme Court No. S-11530/S-11609, No. 6053,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, September 29, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In deciding not to enforce out-of-state judgment, superior court erred in finding attorney's misrepresentation about authority to represent debtor was fraud on Idaho court; savings clauses under Alaska R. Civ. P. 60(b) and Idaho R. Civ. P. 60(b) did not apply because debtor did not show attorney's misrepresentation resulted in different outcome.
|
|||||
| Olson v. Teck Cominco Alaska, Inc., Supreme Court No. S-11755, No. 6052,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, September 29, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employer was properly granted summary judgment in an employee's retaliation claim where the record showed that the employer justifiably terminated the employee for excessive absenteeism and not in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim, which the employer disputed.
|
|||||
| State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Lestenkof, Supreme Court No. S-11754, No. 6049,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, September 29, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The mirror-image rule under Alaska Stat. § 21.89.020 did not apply in a case where a personal representative sought additional attorney's fees under a UIM policy because a driver's liability insurance policy was sufficient to cover the entire award, including attorney's fees under Alaska R. Civ. P. 82. As such, the driver was not underinsured.
|
|||||
| Stuart v. Whaler's Cove, Inc., Supreme Court No. S-11952, No. 6051,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, September 29, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a dispute among a trust, its trustee, and a lodge over alleged encroachments, superior court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to hold lodge in contempt because superior court found that lodge made significant efforts to comply with superior court's earlier order, and superior court's factual findings were not clearly erroneous.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
