 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Anderson v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9053, No. 5118,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, October 4, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In reviewing motion to correct sentence, under Alaska R. Crim. P. 35(a), imposition of Alaska Stat. § 12.55.155(c)(8) aggravators without submitting matter to jury did not violate defendant's Sixth Amendment rights because there was no basis to anticipate speculative decision that prior conviction exception under Blakely might be overturned.
|
|||||
| Cleary v. Smith, Supreme Court No. S-11646, No. 1262,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, October 4, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The superior court properly denied the inmate's motion for a preliminary injunction to stop his transfer to a private Arizona correctional facility where a settlement agreement between Alaskan inmates and correctional facilities did not apply to the transfer of prisoners to non-Federal Bureau of Prisons facilities.
|
|||||
| Lineker v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8957, Court of Appeals No. A-8967, No. 5119,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, October 4, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judge's general reliance on State's interest in enforcing its drug laws was insufficient to demonstrate State's interest was compelling enough to override defendants' rights under free exercise clause to possess marijuana plants and case was remanded to determine if defendants' possession of marijuana was protected under Alaska Const. art. I, § 4.
|
|||||
| Nicholai v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8860, No. 5120,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, October 4, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In trial for resisting arrest and first degree hindering prosecution, there was insufficient evidence, under Alaska Stat. § 11.56.700(a)(1), to convict defendant of resisting arrest because there was no evidence defendant engaged in any forcible resistance that involved substantial danger either to himself or trooper attempting to serve warrant.
|
|||||
| Prince v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9138, No. 5117,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, October 4, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pre-trial motion to suppress cocaine and weapons was properly denied. Seizure of weapons was valid under Fourth Amendment because gun was in car in plain view, and other gun was accessible to defendant. Even if container's search was invalid following arrest, error was harmless because cocaine was also discovered elsewhere as part of valid search.
|
|||||
| Anderson v. PPCT Mgmt. Sys., Supreme Court No. S-11766, No. 6058,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, October 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In state employee's suit against corporation for injuries allegedly incurred in a training program, superior court erred in awarding corporation summary judgment on state employee's negligence claim because corporation did have a duty of care to state employee in developing and implementing its training program.
|
|||||
| Bessette v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9268, No. 2063,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, October 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was convicted of felony DUI, pursuant to Alaska Stat. § 28.35.030, after he was stopped for driving his snowmachine on a sidewalk. Defendant's motion to suppress was properly denied because, even if a trooper's stop of defendant was pretextual, defendant failed to prove trooper departed from reasonable police practice.
|
|||||
| Dep't of Transp. & Pub. Facilities v. Miller, Supreme Court No. S-11946, No. 6060,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, October 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In pilot's suit against State for personal injuries incurred during plane crash, superior court did not err in denying State's motion for continuance because State was not forced to proceed to trial without being able to fairly present its case. Award of damages was appropriate because jury could find pilot's long-term earning capacity was reduced.
|
|||||
| Kirk v. Demientieff, Supreme Court No. S-11760, No. 6059,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, October 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney sought to intervene, pursuant to Alaska R. Civ. P. 24(a), in former client's suit against company when client did not plan to appeal denial of Alaska R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion; however, superior court did not err in denying Rule 24 motion because motion was untimely, as attorney could have moved on same ground more than a year earlier.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
