Legal Opinion

Conrad v. State

Court of Appeals of Alaska

Decided December 20, 2002No. A-08065PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Order

Petition for Rehearing

IT IS ORDERED:

The State seeks rehearing of our decision in this case, Conrad v. State, 54 P.3d 313 (Alaska App.2002). The State contends that our decision is flawed because we misread Doyle v. State, 633 P.2d 306 (Alaska App. 1981) and thereby misinterpreted AS 28.35.030(a)(2).

The ultimate issue in this case is to discern the meaning of AS 28.35.030(a)(2). This statute declares that a person commits the offense of driving while intoxicated if the person operates or controls a motor vehicle “when, as determined by a chemical test taken within four hours after the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Municipality of Anchorage v. SerranoCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 1982
  2. Doyle v. StateCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 1981
  3. Conrad v. StateCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 2002
  4. Gundersen v. Municipality of AnchorageCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 1988

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. State v. MersmanCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2007
  2. Valentine v. StateCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 2007
  3. Blank v. StateCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 2006
  4. Valentine v. StateCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 2007
  5. Valentine v. StateCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 2007

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API