|
|
| |
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!
|
| |
State Courts -
Alaska - November 30 - December 14, 2005
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
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.
|
|
| |
|
| |
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.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback