 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Paxton v. Gavlak, Supreme Court No. S-10607, No. 5839,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, October 15, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Child support enforcement division's failure to send father closure letter kept his financial circumstances file open; thus, modification of his child support payments to date when it issued its notice of petition was not a retroactive modification.
|
|||||
| Wholecheese v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8496, No. 1950,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, October 15, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The appellate court rejected defendant's claim that the trial court should have approved Galena as an additional trial site because Galena met the administrative director's standards for a felony trial site.
|
|||||
| Hunt v. Univ. of Alaska, Supreme Court No. S-11062, No. 1187,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, October 20, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motions for new trial or relief based on new evidence were properly denied, as law of case doctrine applied and new evidence did not show university treated student differently from others by requiring him to pass exam before student teaching.
|
|||||
| Kurzendoerfer v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8590, No. 4935,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, October 20, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for two counts of fourth-degree controlled substance misconduct was proper where the prosecution of trace amounts of a controlled substance was not precluded.
|
|||||
| Shank v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8648, No. 4936,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, October 20, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of engaging in cultivation of marijuana where he owned trailer where it occurred, there was no indication that anyone lived there, and if he knew about it, he had power to stop the activity.
|
|||||
| Crawford v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8459, No. 1951,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, October 22, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court erred by denying a motion to suppress where an officer elicited a confession, immediately after the confession he administered Miranda warnings -- and then the officer reminded defendant of the confession and asked him to re-affirm it.
|
|||||
| Hale v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8472, No. 4938,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, October 27, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions for first-degree burglary and second-degree theft, and to show that defendant acted as the get-away driver during the crime.
|
|||||
| Lageson v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8748, No. 49,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, October 27, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court erred by imposing a sentence greater than the 2-year Austin ceiling without making the finding that defendant's case was more serious than the case of a typical second felony offender committing a typical second-degree theft.
|
|||||
| Punguk v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8625, No. 4939,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, October 27, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant, who had been convicted of attempted sexual assault, failed to establish prima facie case for postconviction relief. Counsel did object to a witness's testimony; counsel could have competently not objected to testimony of other witnesses.
|
|||||
| Westfall v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8532, No. 4937,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, October 27, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was not prejudiced by trial court's restriction of his cross-examining of robbery victim as to her relationship with her roommate because jury was aware of nature of relationship; victim's testimony showed that roommate was her girlfriend.
|
|||||
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. |
