 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bradshaw v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8779, No. 5132,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, November 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was not entitled to post-conviction relief for ineffective assistance of counsel. Attorney discussed a motion to suppress a breath test and evaluated the advantages and disadvantages of accepting a plea agreement before defendant pled guilty to felony driving while under the influence, a violation of Alaska Stat. § 28.35.030(a)(1), (n).
|
|||||
| Christensen v. Christensen, Supreme Court No. S-12056, No. 1264,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, November 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Parties separated after husband filed for divorce. Despite attempts at reconciliation, wife's and husband's efforts failed. Trial court did not abuse its discretion by treating husband's residence as part of marital estate because trial court went to date of marriage.
|
|||||
| Lamb v. Pierce, Supreme Court No. S-11943, No. 1263,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, November 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In father's appeal from denial of motion to modify child custody, father's allegations that Alaska Stat. § 25.20.090 and Alaska Stat. § 25.24.150 were unconstitutional were properly denied because supreme court saw no basis in law for argument that best-interests factors would produce unconstitutional ruling.
|
|||||
| Stansberry v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8875, No. 5131,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, November 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for violating order to submit to DNA testing, a violation of Alaska Stat. § 11.56.760, was affirmed; while the trial court erroneously told the jury to find certain facts, the trial court's comments were harmless because the fact of defendant's incarceration and that he was ordered to submit a DNA sample were not in dispute.
|
|||||
| Williams v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9456, No. 5133,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, November 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a dispatcher informed the trooper that the registration was expired, the trooper had probable cause to stop defendant; thus defendant's motion to suppress was denied and his conviction for driving in violation of his instructional permit in violation of Alaska Stat. § 28.15.051(a)-(b) was affirmed.
|
|||||
| Zuboff v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8692, No. 5130,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, November 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a murder case, defendant failed to preserve an issue regarding evidence of the victim's being the initial aggressor because, although counsel still disagreed with the court's resolution of the point of law, counsel repeatedly declared that the resolution of the legal debate had no effect on his plans for arguing defendant's case to the jury.
|
|||||
| Blood v. Kenneth A. Murray Ins., Inc., Supreme Court Nos. S-11733/S-11763, No. 6067,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, November 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An insurer and an agency substantially complied with the notice requirements of Alaska Stat. § 21.36.260 by mailing notices of nonrenewal to the insured's last known address, which was incorrect but the only address provided by the insurer; thus the insurer was not covered when he was injured in an accident after the policy terminated.
|
|||||
| State v. Rivers, Court of Appeals No. A-8918, No. 2071,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, November 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In defendant's trial for unemployment fraud, trial court erroneously suppressed incriminating statements defendant made to an investigator regarding his unemployment benefits because defendant failed to assert his right against self-incrimination under Alaska Stat. § 23.20.070 and defendant was not in custody or coerced when he made the statements.
|
|||||
| Miller v. Miller, Supreme Court No. S-11625, No. 1265,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, November 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a divorce matter, trial court did not abuse its discretion in deciding separation date for husband and wife was on October 1, 2001, because that was date husband called wife to say "let's bag it." Couple had already stopped sharing common and living expenses, and they already maintained separate bank accounts.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
