 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Beard v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8792, No. 5024,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, November 30, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court's sentencing remarks and sentencing findings justified a sentence in excess of the Andrews benchmark range for first felony offenders convicted of aggravated instances of child sexual abuse where defendant admitted statutory aggravating factors under Alaska Stat. § 12.55.155(c)(18).
|
|||||
| Municipality of Anchorage v. Devon, Supreme Court No. S-11368, No. 5961,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, December 2, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the employee sustained injuries to his arm and shoulder while operating a grader, the board did not err by awarding him TTD payments under Alaska Stat. § 23.30.185. A private investigator's videotape showing the employee engaging in physical activities after his injury did not support the conclusion that he fraudulently obtained benefits.
|
|||||
| Gilbert v. Sperbeck, Supreme Court No. S-10842, No. 5964,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, December 9, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Witness immunity barred the insured's claims of fraud and misrepresentation against the psychologist. Insured could not recover monetary damages from psychologist under ADA, 42 U.S.C.S. § 12101 et seq., as she had not asked for injunctive relief. Insured waived her Alaska Stat. § 18.80.230(a) claim by failing to raise theory in her initial brief.
|
|||||
| Hanson v. Hanson, Supreme Court No. S-11294/S-11313, No. 5962,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, December 9, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in determining that husband's share in a business was his separate property without applying an active appreciation analysis. Trial court did not err in refusing to discount wife's five percent share of business; minority discount was not appropriate under facts of case. Also, trial court properly offset wife's pretrial awards.
|
|||||
| Sengupta v. Wickwire, Supreme Court No. S-11232, No. 5963,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, December 9, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Professor knew of facts upon which he based free speech malpractice claim prior to March 26, 1996, six years before he filed his complaint. Even if superior court erred when it determined that his claim was time-barred, error was harmless as only retaliation claim he could have raised related to denial of a raise, which was not an issue on appeal.
|
|||||
| State v. Jack, Supreme Court No. S-11051, No. 5968,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, December 12, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alaska had jurisdiction under Alaska Stat. § 44.03.010 to prosecute defendant for sexual assault that allegedly occurred on an Alaska state ferry in Canadian waters because crime alleged occurred in "water offshore from the coast" of Alaska within the meaning of that phrase as used in § 44.03.010.
|
|||||
| David v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8408, No. 5027,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, December 14, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In resentencing for several offenses that included sexual assault, trial court did not err, in light of sentencing goals codified in Alaska Stat. § 12.55.005, in imposing a composite 18-year sentence because, inter alia, prospects for defendant's rehabilitation were guarded, defendant had a lengthy record, and impact of offense on victim was great.
|
|||||
| Ipalook v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8782, No. 5026,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, December 14, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In trial of second-degree assault, state sufficiently proved assault was done with a dangerous instrument, a knife, as provided in Alaska Stat. § 11.81.900, and defendant had requisite intent to stab his niece, despite his extreme inebriation.
|
|||||
| Saucier v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8732, No. 5025,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, December 14, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In violation of a protective order, defendant called his former girlfriend, and he placed a personal ad to his child in a paper. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow defendant to present a necessity defense, pursuant to Alaska Stat. § 11.81.320(a), because he failed to present evidence to support the elements of necessity.
|
|||||
| Tanana Valley Clinic v. Adams, Supreme Court No. S-11588, No. 1231,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, December 14, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a workers' compensation matter, superior court properly reversed the Alaska Workers' Compensation Board's denial of medical and transportation benefits to the employee because employer had a heavy burden to overcome in light of consensus regarding treatment; however, additional interpretation of Alaska Stat. § 23.30.395(20) was needed.
|
|||||
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. |
