 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Christopherson v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9339, No. 5128,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, October 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was found, with an alcoholic drink, by state trooper in a bunkhouse. Trial court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress because bunkhouse had doors that were unlocked, which led to a central corridor; it was reasonable to enter doors and walk down corridor. Trooper did not need warrant pursuant to Fourth Amendment.
|
|||||
| Joseph v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8961, No. 5126,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, October 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was released on probation after he entered a guilty plea in a drug case. Defendant was charged with new offense, and probation was revoked. When defendant conceded aggravator pursuant to Alaska Stat. § 12.55.155(c)(10), Sixth Amendment right to jury at sentencing was not implicated because issue was one of law, not fact.
|
|||||
| Vonscheele v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9498, No. 5127,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, October 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant admitted several violations of his probation, the trial court did not err by imposing the remaining 27 months of his suspended sentence for assault in the third degree and driving while under the influence, Alaska Stat. §§ 11.41.220(a)(1)(B), 28.35.030(a). Defendant had poor prospects for rehabilitation and was a risk to the public.
|
|||||
| Anderson v. State, Court of Appeals Nos. A-9003/A-9005, No. 2068,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, October 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When defendants harbored and concealed their son, and when they lied to the officers about his whereabouts, knowing that the officers were attempting to arrest him for violating his felony probation, and acting with the intent to hinder his punishment, defendants committed first-degree hindering prosecution under Alaska Stat. § 11.56.770(a)(1).
|
|||||
| Lightle v. State, Supreme Court No. S-11719, No. 6065,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, October 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Record contained substantial evidence that listing agent misrepresented home's availability by: (1) inaccurately describing the home as an "active listing;" (2) prematurely telling the buyer that the originally accepted offer had been rescinded; and (3) incorrectly assuring the buyer that her own offer had been accepted and that the house was hers.
|
|||||
| Miller v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9484, No. 2069,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, October 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant entered a guilty plea to refusing to submit to a chemical test, pursuant to Alaska Stat. § 28.35.032(a), but defendant's motion to suppress should have been granted. Officer did not have reasonable suspicion to stop car because a verbal domestic dispute, alone, did not justify a detention.
|
|||||
| Meyer v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9466, No. 5129,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, October 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alaska sentencing judge's adding one year onto the presumptive six-year sentence of defendant, who was convicted of downloading children's pornography in violation of his Oregon parole, was not unreasonable; defendant had four prior felony convictions and conceded the application of the aggravating factors in Alaska Stat. § 12.55.155(c)(15), (20).
|
|||||
| Denardo v. Bax, Supreme Court Nos. S-11487/S-11508, No. 6066,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, October 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was affirmed where defendant female employee's statements to coworkers that she was worried that plaintiff male employee was stalking her was subject to a conditional privilege against his defamation claim, and did not abuse the privilege. An order limiting discovery under Alaska R. Civ. P. 26 was not an abuse of discretion.
|
|||||
| Smart v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9025, Court of Appeals No. A-9037, No. 2070,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, October 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Teague retroactivity test limited authority of federal courts but not state courts, thus appeals court was bound to apply retroactivity test adopted by Alaska Supreme Court and concluded that Blakely rule requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt should be applied retroactively to defendants whose convictions were final prior to the rule.
|
|||||
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. |
