 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Benavides v. State, Supreme Court No. S-11983/S-12033, No. 6073,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, November 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alaska Stat. § 24.10.130 did not entitle legislative employees to session per diem; thus, court did not err in rejecting a legislative employee's claim that state legislative council's failure to grant such an allowance violated § 24.10.130; statute only required legislative employees be provided with per diem and reimbursement for required travel.
|
|||||
| Blodgett v. Blodgett (In re Estate of Blodgett), Supreme Court No. S-11571, No. 6076,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, November 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because Alaska Stat. § 11.41.130 criminally negligent homicide was unintentional homicide, under slayer statute, Alaska Stat. § 13.12.803(k), son was entitled to avoid effects of statute if he proved that applying statute to him resulted in manifest injustice, but, trial court did not err in finding no manifest injustice resulted from forfeiture.
|
|||||
| Garhart v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9081, No. 2072,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, November 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Following execution of warrants, defendant was convicted of controlled substance misconduct. Restrictions on search warrants was inapplicable retroactively because judicial officers who issued warrants, relying on existent laws, did so reasonably and in good faith. Attack on constitutionality of Alaska Stat. § 11.71.040(a)(3)(F) was also rejected.
|
|||||
| Green Party of Alaska v. State, Supreme Court No. S-11964, No. 6077,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, November 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Former Alaska Stat. § 15.60.101(21) was constitutional because voters overstated the magnitude of their injury, as they were not totally deprived of the opportunity to place candidates on the ballot and state's interest in requiring a significant modicum of support was compelling because it helped avoid confusion, deception, and frustration.
|
|||||
| Haynes v. McComb, Supreme Court No. S-11977, No. 6075,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, November 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was improperly granted to an attorney in a legal malpractice case because she was unable to use a client's criminal conviction as collateral estoppel to establish the defense of actual guilt since the conviction had been vacated by stipulation in a post-conviction proceeding.
|
|||||
| Kohlhaas v. State, Supreme Court No. S-11866, No. 6072,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, November 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Lieutenant Governor properly denied certification of initiative under Alaska Const. art. XI, § 1, calling for Alaska's secession from United States because, although neither the federal nor state constitutions expressly prohibited secession, U.S. Supreme Court had found it clearly unconstitutional and state was thus bound under Supremacy Clause.
|
|||||
| Lamb v. Anderson, Supreme Court No. S-11936, No. 6078,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, November 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant in a negligence action was collaterally estopped from denying that he evidenced reckless indifference to the interest of another person with respect to plaintiff's punitive damages request under Alaska Stat. § 09.17.020(b) where defendant had pled no contest to second-degree assault under Alaska Stat. § 11.41.210(a)(2).
|
|||||
| Schmitz v. Yukon-Koyukuk Sch. Dist., Supreme Court No. S-11683, No. 6079,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, November 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was proper under Alaska R. Civ. P. 56 dismissing former employee's breach of contract action against school district employer because the contract incorporated a CBA that included grievance procedures and the employee met only two of three-step process and failed to timely offer evidence to excuse his failure to meet requirement.
|
|||||
| Smallwood v. Cent. Peninsula Gen. Hosp., Supreme Court Nos. S-11406/S-11585, No. 6074,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, November 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In Medicaid recipient's suit against hospital, hospital breached its provider agreement with state, pursuant to Title XIX of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.S. §§ 1396-1396v, by billing recipient in excess of co-pay obligation. Recipient could seek injunctive and declaratory relief because he was a third-party beneficiary of agreement with state.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
