 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bergman Hotel v. Barrett, Supreme Court No. S-10791, No. 1147,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, November 19, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While a superior court made a proper judgment that an ex-husband of a deceased testator was a de facto partner in a hotel the testator owned, it prematurely made an award prior to a proper winding up of the hotel partnership.
|
|||||
| Pointer v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8338, No. 4794,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, November 19, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err by allowing the State to call the complainant's son as a rebuttal witness after the defense had rested where the son was a potential witness, and the police report provided the complainant's address and telephone number.
|
|||||
| Westbrook v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8464, No. 4793,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, November 19, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's arguments of unconstitutionality of alcohol possession by minor statute were disposed of in prior appeal. State did not commit discovery violation to warrant sanction. Evidence was sufficient to find defendant possessed alcohol.
|
|||||
| Doxsee v. Doxsee, Supreme Court No. S-10424, No. 5754,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, November 21, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a personal injury case, a court did not err by failing to give a proposed instruction on aggravation of a pre-existing injury where plaintiff failed to establish that the instruction would have had any appreciable effect on the jury's verdict.
|
|||||
| Gurney v. Gurney, Supreme Court No. S-10744, No. 5755,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, November 21, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's finding that the parties intended equal ownership shares in most of the property that was accumulated during their voided marriage was not clearly erroneous, and the division of the marital property was not an abuse of discretion.
|
|||||
| Morrow v. State, Court of Appeals Nos. A-8396/8405, No. 1907,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, November 21, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An improper comment by the prosecutor to the grand jury did not warrant dismissal of the indictment, defendant was properly denied a bifurcated trial, and his prior failure to appear convictions were relevant to rebut his claim of mistake.
|
|||||
| Anderson v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8421, No. 4796,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, November 26, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In motion to suppress drug evidence, because evidence was insufficient to determine whether officer knew that defendant's pockets contained a potential weapon before she pulled knife and drugs out of his pockets, case was remanded to superior court.
|
|||||
| Hodson v. Hodson, Supreme Court No. S-10572, No. 1149,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, November 26, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Mother did not show good cause for a psychological examination of father, failed to file a timely opposition to father's motion for an extension, and raised no genuine issue of material fact in opposition to father's motion for reconsideration.
|
|||||
| Puisis v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8497, No. 4795,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, November 26, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the inmate did not provide an affidavit from his trial or appellate attorney in the underlying criminal case, he did not show per se ineffective assistance of counsel. Thus, judge properly dismissed his application for post-conviction relief.
|
|||||
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. |
