 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Allen v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8740, No. 2019,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, November 18, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the defense of necessity under Alaska Stat. ¿ 11.81.320 because defendant presented an offer of proof that adequately addressed the proportionality of the harm done compared to the harm avoided, which created a jury question as to both issues.
|
|||||
| Hixson v. Sarkesian, Supreme Court No. S-11489, No. 5958,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, November 18, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In determining whether and how fluctuations in the exchange rate from Swiss francs and U.S. dollars should have been assessed in deciding whether to modify child support, the trial court erred by not following the methodology specified in Alaska R. Civ. P. 90.3(h)(1) or the same methodology it previously used to calculate support.
|
|||||
| Munson v. State, Supreme Court No. S-10444, No. 5959,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, November 18, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant unambiguously invoked his right to remain silent, Alaska Const. art. I, ¿ 9, and because the officer failed to honor the request, the confession was properly suppressed; nothing in the circumstances surrounding the declaration (apparent fear of retaliation) gave the officer a reasonable basis to continue the questioning.
|
|||||
| Gilbert v. Municipality of Anchorage/ Animal Control, Supreme Court No. S-11521, No. 1229,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, November 23, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In dog owner's appeal of administrative tickets issued because she allegedly allowed her dog to roam without a leash, superior court did not abuse its discretion in declining to accept the dog owner's late-filed motion because no consideration for exercising discretion to relax time limit favored dog owner.
|
|||||
| Hugh P. v. State, Supreme Court No. S-11589, No. 1230,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, November 23, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The termination of a father's parental rights was proper where he abandoned his daughter pursuant to Alaska Stat. ¿¿ 47.10.011(1) and 47.10.013(a)(4) by failing to comply with case plans. The finding that the Division of Family and Youth Services made active efforts to prevent the breakup of his family was adequately supported by the record.
|
|||||
| McCurdy v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8809, No. 5023,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, November 23, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ruling that seizure of contraband was justified due to inevitable discovery was remanded for litigation of the inevitable discovery issue because parties litigated Miranda issue at evidentiary hearing but not inevitable discovery question. Neither party questioned witnesses about evidence relating to application of inevitable discovery doctrine.
|
|||||
| Peltola v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8901, No. 5022,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, November 23, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In defendant's trial for several game and fish violations related to guiding an illegal hunting expedition, trial court did not abuse its discretion by holding trial at Aniak, near where the hunt occurred, because defendant failed to show, pursuant to Alaska Stat. ¿ 22.15.080, how the ends of justice would be promoted by holding trial in Bethel.
|
|||||
| Anderson v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8638, No. 2020,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, November 25, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was insufficient to sustain an evidence tampering conviction, Alaska Stat. ¿ 11.56.610, where defendant's act of tossing a handgun, magazine, and ammunition out of the car in the sight of the police did nothing to disguise the evidentiary value of the items, and therefore, did not constitute the offense of evidence tampering by "removal."
|
|||||
| OK Lumber Co. v. Alaska R.R. Corp., Supreme Court No. S-11430, No. 5960,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, November 25, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment upholding arbitration under Alaska Stat. ¿ 09.43.010 was affirmed as arbitrator did not exceed his authority in construing the underlying contract; because there was no lack of arbitrability, the reviewing court had no authority to reconsider the arbitrator's construction of contract provisions that did not pertain to arbitrability.
|
|||||
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. |
