Conrad v. State
Court of Appeals of Alaska
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
- Municipality of Anchorage v. SerranoCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 1982
- Doyle v. StateCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 1981
- Conrad v. StateCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 2002
- Gundersen v. Municipality of AnchorageCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 1988
3Cited by5 opinions
- State v. MersmanCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2007
- Valentine v. StateCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 2007
- Blank v. StateCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 2006
- Valentine v. StateCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 2007
- Valentine v. StateCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 2007