 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Cleary v. Smith, Supreme Court No. S-11646, No. 6068,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, November 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where adult prisoners resolved their equal protection claims with the State of Alaska and the Federal Bureau of Prisons (FBOP) by entering into a settlement agreement, the agreement did not prevent the transfer of an Alaska prisoner to a non-FBOP facility in Arizona.
|
|||||
| Peter A. v. State, Supreme Court No. S-12119, No. 6070,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, November 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an adjudication of children in need of aid, pursuant to Alaska Stat. §§ 47.10.011(6), (9), and (10), a father's appeal was moot because the State voluntarily dismissed the matter after the adjudication order and no live controversy remained. Also, the father would not suffer collateral consequences because the order was vacated.
|
|||||
| State v. Parker, Supreme Court No. S-11503, No. 6071,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, November 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was sentenced for exploitation of a minor and possession of child pornography. Lower appellate court improperly determined that mitigating factor under Alaska Stat. § 12.55.155(d)(9) (former) was proper because, even though conduct in taking pictures of 16 year old was not most serious, it did not follow that conduct was "least serious."
|
|||||
| W. States Fire Prot. Co. v. Municipality of Anchorage, Supreme Court No. S-11895, No. 6069,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, November 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a review of dispute between sprinkler installer of high school auditorium's sprinkler system and fire department, board of building examiners' decision, pursuant to Anchorage, Alaska, Municipal Code § 23.45.100, was inadequate because decision failed to address crucial question--whether sprinklers would provide adequate water coverage.
|
|||||
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. |
