 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. Dep't of Envtl. Conservation, Supreme Court No. S-12029, No. 6063,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, October 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A court properly upheld denial of company's appeal of "permit administration fees" issued by Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation in connection with company's administrative appeals of air quality permits where Alaska Stat. § 46.14.240(c)(3) allowed Department to recover costs of administrative appeals through permit administration fees.
|
|||||
| Estate of Milos v. Quality Asphalt Paving, Inc., Supreme Court No. S-11835, No. 6062,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, October 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Decedent's death occurred when he was driving his employer's ATV at a work site. Trial court improperly granted summary judgment, pursuant to Alaska Stat. § 23.30.055, because genuine issue was presented at to whether the decedent was off-shift, and there was not a sufficient nexus between the decedent's post-shift actions and his employment.
|
|||||
| Hall v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9437, No. 2066,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, October 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant had been discharged from the service for writing bad checks and he continued this after several arrests, a probationary sentence was not justified after he entered a no contest plea to a scheme to defraud, in violation of Alaska Stat. § 11.46.600(b), and a violation of the conditions of release under Alaska Stat. § 11.56.757(b)(1).
|
|||||
| Joseph v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8939, No. 2067,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, October 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When defendant tossed away plastic bag containing cocaine as he was being pursued by police, defendant was entitled to suppression of evidence because, under Alaska Const. art. I, § 14, police pursuit was illegal when police attempted to detain defendant at scene to investigate another offense: alleged smoking of marijuana that officer did not see.
|
|||||
| N. W. Cruiseship Ass'n of Alaska, Inc. v. Office of Lieutenant Governor, Div. of Elections, Supreme Court No. S-12232, No. 6064,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, October 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although election division's method of auditing signatures in initiative imposing additional taxes on cruise ship industry was imprecise in that voting registration status could only be verified as of date petitions were filed, audit was reasonable given that there was no statutory requirement that each signature be dated at the time of audit.
|
|||||
| Netling v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9334, No. 2065,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, October 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Rejection of defendant's mitigating favor under Alaska Stat. § 12.55.155(d)(9) was erroneous in a case where he was convicted of manufacturing methamphetamine because production of a small amount could have qualified as among the "least serious," despite the higher offense of manufacturing this particular drug.
|
|||||
| Porterfield v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9033, No. 2064,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, October 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petition for postconviction relief was denied in a murder and arson case because an inmate's Sixth Amendment rights were not violated by the admission under Alaska R. Evid. 803(b)(3) of a statement made by his wife to a friend who was secretly taping conversations for the police because this was not "testimonial hearsay."
|
|||||
| St. Paul Church, Inc. v. Bd. of Trs. of the Alaska Missionary Conf. of the United Methodist Church, Inc., Supreme Court Nos. S-11641/S-11661, No. 6061,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, October 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A finding that the Alaska Missionary Conference was entitled to possession of disputed properties between it and a discontinued church was appropriate because the neutral-principles approach was the proper approach to use in resolving how property disputes should be resolved following a schism between religious groups.
|
|||||
| McCurdy v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-08809,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, October 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court denied defendant's petition for rehearing, under Alaska R. App. P. 506, of its affirmance that decision that doctrine of inevitable discovery would justify admission of evidence because fact that officers "deliberately" violated his rights was not sufficient to bar application of doctrine as the officers did not act in bad faith.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
