 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Brown v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8088, No. 4770,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, October 8, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Case remanded to trial court for additional findings where findings regarding whether forcible entry into hotel room believed occupied by probationer was lawful were insufficient for appellate court to address suppression issues raised by occupant.
|
|||||
| Kiel v. Alexander, Supreme Court No. S-10911, No. 1144,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, October 8, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: By being sober for three years and holding down a job for two and one-half years, a mother demonstrated a substantial change in circumstances supporting modification of child custody order where the order returned the custody to previous arrangement.
|
|||||
| Dayton v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8526, No. 1902,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, October 10, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant damaged the victim's property during the commission of an assault, he was ordered to pay restitution. The court of appeals amended the restitution order to reflect a $ 3,500 value for the computer and software that was damaged.
|
|||||
| Turner v. Alaska Communs. Sys. Long Distance, Inc., Supreme Court No. S-10692, No. 5742,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, October 10, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court of appeals rejected language in a class action notification stating that defendants' attorney fees could be imposed on absent class members.
|
|||||
| Tina S. v. State, Supreme Court No. S-10810, No. 1145,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, October 15, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence supported findings that mother would not participate in an appropriate treatment program to address alcohol and cocaine addiction, and that reasonable efforts were made to return child to her, so parental rights were terminated.
|
|||||
| Anderson v. State ex rel. Cent. Bering Sea Fishermen's Ass'n, Supreme Court Nos. S-10416/10425, No. 5745,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, October 16, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a worker received a punitive damages award in her wrongful discharge and defamation suit, a portion of contingent attorney's fees could be deducted from Alaska's pro rata portion of the award.
|
|||||
| Greenpeace, Inc. v. State, Supreme Court No. S-10040, No. 5743,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, October 16, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alaska Division of Governmental Coordination was not required to conduct analysis comparable to that required by NEPA for preparation of environmental impact statements when it made consistency determination under Alaska's Coastal Management Program.
|
|||||
| Vivian P. v. Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Supreme Court No. S-10784, No. 5744,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, October 16, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As the trial court properly found the mother's child was a child in need of aid, and, as the trial court did not err in finding reasonable efforts to reunite the family to be unnecessary, termination of the mother's parental rights was proper.
|
|||||
| Winfrey v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8332, No. 1903,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, October 16, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Suppression was not warranted as neither of defendant's requests to make a phone call was related to the breath test. Evidence defendant sought to admit was relevant, but, given strength of State's case, any possible error was harmless.
|
|||||
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. |
