 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Alderman v. Iditarod Props., Supreme Court No. S-9285, No. 5486,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, October 12, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Jury's verdict finding that name of plaintiff's trolley tours business had acquired secondary meaning and that defendants who operated a separate business with the same name infringed plaintiff's trade name was supported by the evidence.
|
|||||
| Exxon Corp. v. State, Supreme Court No. S-9164, No. 5487,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, October 12, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Department of Natural Resources (DNR) did not err in denying oil company's request to expand one of its units where the expansion was not in the public interest, and the DNR had the discretion to grant or deny an expansion.
|
|||||
| Krossa v. All Alaskan Seafoods, Supreme Court No. S-9576, No. 5488,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, October 12, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee was adequately compensated for work during the week before a contract was created, and he agreed to the terms offered by the employer after the first week of work. Employee had no valid claim for additional damages.
|
|||||
| LAMPLEY v. STATE, Court of Appeals No. A-7539, No. 1768,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, October 12, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court correctly denied defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal because the date on the protective order was a clerical mistake, the order was always valid, and it governed defendant's behavior during the time he violated the order.
|
|||||
| NICHOLIA v. STATE, Court of Appeals No. A-7660, No. 1769,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, October 12, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Burglary and sexual assault convictions were upheld because the erroneous admission of evidence was harmless error in that it did not substantially alter the strength of the State's case or appreciably affect the jury's verdicts.
|
|||||
| Sprucewood Inv. Corp. v. Alaska Hous. Fin. Corp., Supreme Court No. S-9371, No. 5489,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, October 19, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgments were affirmed because the parties agreed that the contract required demolition of the buildings, and the contractor breached the contract by removing the buildings and selling them.
|
|||||
| Tolan v. Kimball, Supreme Court No. S-9374, No. 5490,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, October 19, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff was properly awarded an interest in the defendant's house where, although title to the house was solely in defendant's name, the plaintiff contributed to the mortgage payments, and did repair work on the house.
|
|||||
| Cook v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-7565, No. 1770,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, October 26, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was timely brought to trial where rule was properly applied to defendant after he entered a plea conditioned on future acceptance by court, and later withdrew that plea and requested a trial.
|
|||||
| Municipality of Anchorage v. Repasky, Supreme Court No. S-8985, No. 5491,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, October 26, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Mayor had power to veto items in the home rule city's school budget where the municipal charter granted that power, and the power did not conflict with state law.
|
|||||
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. |
