CRIMINAL LAW Matthew Naiman In Kangas v. State, the court of appeals held that judges may instruct a jury that mental state may be inferred from circumstantial evidence. A jury convicted Kangas to two 99-year consecutive sentences for the intentional killing of two state troopers whom he knew to be acting in performance of their Continue Reading »
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Kate Goldberg In Antenor v. State, Department of Corrections, the supreme court held that denying an inmate access to a computer programing book based on security reasons did not violate the Alaska Constitution’s free speech provision or the constitutional right to reformation. In 2017, inmate Antenor attempted to order a computer programming book Continue Reading »
ETHICS Kristen M. Renberg, PhD In In re Brion, the supreme court held that the current procedures for disciplinary and reinstatement hearings for disbarred attorneys do not violate their due process rights. In 2009, a Hearing Committee found that Brion had violated his duties of diligence, communication, and handling client funds, and recommended disbarment. In Continue Reading »
FAMILY LAW Natalie Howard In Angelica C. v. Jonathan C., the supreme court held it was legal error to ignore the father’s sexual abuse of the mother when analyzing factors to determine best interests of the child in awarding custody. Jonathan pleaded guilty to attempted sexual abuse of a minor in the second degree after Continue Reading »
FAMILY LAW Mike Keramidas In M.M. ex rel. Kirkland v. State, Department of Administration, the supreme court held that (1) the Office of Public Advocacy (OPA) could contract with third-party service providers to fulfill its duty of providing wards with in-person quarterly visits, and (2) a “next friend” could not be held personally liable for Continue Reading »
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Daisy Gray In Barnebey v. Department of Administration, Division of Motor Vehicles, the supreme court held that a Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) hearing officer did not violate Barnebey’s due process rights by revoking his driver’s license because of his breath test results without considering margin of error evidence. A state trooper stopped Barnebey Continue Reading »
CRIMINAL LAW Andrew Webb In Karrv. State, the court of appeals held that the Covid-19 pandemic constituted new information for the purposes of considering a second or subsequent bail review hearing. James Karr, Darrell Sam, and Erwin Nashoanak each appealed their denial for applications for a second or subsequent bail review hearing after the superior Continue Reading »
TORT LAW Matthew Naiman In McCormick v. Chippewa, Inc., the supreme court held that the superior court did not abuse its discretion when it limited discovery to documents created in the time period surrounding the settlement agreement in question. In 2007, McCormick was injured while working on a vessel owned by Chippewa, Inc. After learning Continue Reading »
HEALTH LAW Mike Keramidas In Israel v. State, Department of Corrections, the supreme court held that a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia based on delusions was correct as a matter of law when the diagnosed party’s evidence was “too incredible to be believed” and therefore insufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion. Psychiatrists from the Alaska Continue Reading »
EMPLOYMENT LAW Natalie Howard In Lovely v. Baker Hughes, Inc., the supreme court held that for purposes of the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Act (AWCA), a project owner must actually contract with a person to perform specific work as well as enjoy the beneficial use of that work. Several construction workers received workers’ compensation from their Continue Reading »
