 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Allen v. State, Supreme Court No. S-10476, No. 1232,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, December 16, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Alaska R. Civ. P. 90.3, where father's net income resulted in a child support obligation of more than $ 600, which easily exceeded $ 487 monthly payment that his already existing support order required him to pay, superior court did not err in refusing to reduce father's payments during the year after his reasonable resignation from work.
|
|||||
| Bartlett v. State ex rel. Bartlett, Supreme Court No. S-11271, No. 5966,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, December 16, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), Alaska. Stat. § 25.25.101 et seq., case, Arizona court's determination that father was not properly served with 1993 Alaska child support order, based on collateral estoppel exception of Restatement (Second) of Judgments, should not have been given issue preclusive effect invalidating Alaska order.
|
|||||
| Cikan v. Arco Alaska, Inc., Supreme Court No. S-10915, No. 5967,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, December 16, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in dismissing plaintiff's personal injury suit on summary judgment; under Alaska Stat. § 09.10.140(a), mental incompetency tolled the two-year filing limit, and a factual dispute existed over plaintiff's competency. A formal finding of incompetency by a medical expert was not necessary to raise a genuine issue of fact.
|
|||||
| John v. Baker, Supreme Court No. S-11176, No. 5965,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, December 16, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court correctly ruled that the issue of child support had never been referred to the Native Village of Northway tribal court following the referral of a child custody dispute between the Native Alaskan parties, and that the Alaska Child Support Enforcement Division could enforce the trial court's child support order.
|
|||||
| Jones v. Dep't of Corrections, Supreme Court No. S-10743, No. 5969,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, December 16, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a state employee's wrongful termination case, a court properly awarded the State attorney's fees under Alaska R. Civ. P. 68 because the the employee declined the State's pretrial offer of judgment for $ 12,000, and the jury awarded the employee $ 3,900.
|
|||||
| State v. Thomas, Court of Appeals No. A-8778, No. 2021,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, December 16, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment retroactively striking down probation condition was reversed because given defendant's history, it was reasonable for judge to have concluded that a probation condition allowing drug searches would further both his rehabilitation and protection of public; condition was lawful, and State could prosecute defendant for possession of cocaine.
|
|||||
| Vandergriff v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8946, No. 2022,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, December 16, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a sentencing judge applying the Neal-Mutschler rule assessed whether a composite term to serve exceeding the maximum term for defendant's most serious crime was necessary to protect the public, and after a careful examination of the sentencing criteria of Alaska Stat. § 12.55.005, the judge was not required to submit that issue to a jury.
|
|||||
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. |
