 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Anchorage Citizens for Taxi Reform v. Municipality of Anchorage, Supreme Court No. S-11453, No. 6086,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, December 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Citizens supported an initiative that would have allowed taxi permits to be issued by a municipality to any qualified person paying a fee. Clerk erred in refusing to place initiative on ballot because initiative did not violate Alaska Const. art. XI, § 7. No appropriation by initiative would be made because the permits were not public assets.
|
|||||
| Billum v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9004, No. 2079,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, December 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a sentencing court imposed defendant's sentence for first and third degree assault using the aggravating factor of Alaska Stat. § 12.55.155(c)(10) in violation of Blakely, the error was harmless when the sentencing court could have imposed the same 10 year with 5 years suspended sentence without relying on an aggravating factor.
|
|||||
| Blood v. Kenneth A. Murray Ins., Inc., Supreme Court Nos. S-11733/S-11763, No. 6084,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, December 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even though an insurer did not obtain a certificate of mailing a notice of cancellation, as required by Alaska Stat. § 21.36.260, there was substantial compliance where the returned mail was introduced into evidence because it furnished the same proof as the certificate would have.
|
|||||
| Douglas v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8799, No. 2078,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, December 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a sexual assault case, the court properly excluded evidence, Alaska R. Evid. 403, of an alleged phone call where the victim purported to have sex with another man because defendant was allowed to question the victim about phone calls generally, providing defendant the opportunity to explore the dynamics of their relationship.
|
|||||
| Marunich v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8979, No. 2077,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, December 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As trial court illegally increased defendant's sentence by imposing two general conditions of probation after he was sentenced, his double jeopardy rights were violated. Also, although they might be typical conditions of probation, as trial court imposed six general conditions of probation without notice to him, it violated his due process rights.
|
|||||
| Perkins v. Doyon Universal Servs., LLC, Supreme Court No. S-11920, No. 6085,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, December 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was properly granted to an employer in a racial discrimination case under Alaska Stat. § 18.80.220 because it showed a legitimate and nondiscriminatory reason for failing to hire an applicant; internal candidates were preferred for one position, and the person hired had more relevant experience than the applicant for another job.
|
|||||
| Amin v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8880, No. 5157,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, December 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Following applicant's convictions on several charges related to welfare fraud, applicant sought post-conviction relief. Applicant failed to show trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance because applicant failed to show plea was not knowing or voluntary and applicant failed to show plea was entered without full knowledge of potential sentence.
|
|||||
| Northwest Med. Imaging, Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, Supreme Court No. S-11984, No. 6087,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, December 29, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Administratively dissolved corporation was properly assessed corporate income taxes under Alaska Stat. § 43.05.010(14) because court had subject matter jurisdiction to determine taxability of corporations operating in state and corporation did not cease to exist where it maintained active bank accounts, entered into contracts, and leased vehicles.
|
|||||
| Public Emples. Ret. Sys. v. Gallant, Supreme Court Nos. S-11926/S-11945, No. 6088,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, December 29, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alaska public employee retirement and teachers' retirement systems' cost-of-living allowance (COLA) residency requirement did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Alaska Constitution because COLA had a fair and substantial relationship to its purpose which was to encourage retirees to continue to live in the state.
|
|||||
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. |
