Civil Procedure

  • Strong v. Williams In Strong v. Williams, the supreme court held that despite pre-trial dismissal with prejudice of a landowner’s settled claims against his neighbors, res judicata and collateral estoppel do not preclude subsequent claims against a municipality on the same underlying facts.  Since 1974, John Strong has owned property in Anchorage; since the 1980s, the property has ...
  • Marcy v. Matanuska-Susitna Borough In Marcy v. Matanuska-Susitna Borough, the supreme court held that the public interest in reviewing a suit similar to other potential upcoming litigation did not override the claim’s mootness.  In 2014, Alaska passed a statewide ballot initiative to legalize marijuana, enacting section 17.38 of the Alaska Statutes.  It legalized marijuana, but allows local governments to ...
  • Lum v. Koles In Lum v. Koles, the Supreme Court of Alaska held that in opposing a motion for summary judgment, a plaintiff may overcome the defense of qualified immunity, under section 09.65.070(d)(2) of the Alaska Statutes, when the record contains at least some objective evidence capable of supporting an inference of malice.  Qualified immunity grants municipal employees ...
  • City of Kodiak v. Kodiak Public Broadcasting Corp. In City of Kodiak v. Kodiak Public Broadcasting Corp., the Supreme Court of Alaska held that courts may not award full attorneys’ fees under section 09.60.0101 of the Alaska Statutes unless a claimant raises a constitutional issue in their complaint or similar claim for relief.  In September 2015, the Kodiak Police Department reportedly used excessive ...
  • Brooks Range Petroleum Corp. v. Shearer In Brooks Range Petroleum Corp. v. Shearer, the supreme court held that the proper venue for tort claims is where the harmful force of the tort first took effect, and that proper venue for contract claims is where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred. While weighing a full-time employment ...
  • Gross v. Wilson In Gross v. Wilson, the Supreme Court of Alaska held that a properly challenged erroneous judgment is not void unless the deciding court lacked subject matter jurisdiction or violated due process.  In the final divorce agreement between Robert Gross and Dawn Wilson, Gross agreed to regularly pay Wilson half of the value of his monthly ...
  • Fink v. Anchorage In Fink v. Anchorage, the Supreme Court of Alaska held that in directly reviewing a municipal assembly’s decision to levy a special assessment, a court will defer to the Assembly’s expertise and only reverse upon proof of fraud or arbitrariness.  Decades after an earthquake destroyed the neighborhood of Turnagain Heights, lot owners petitioned the Municipality ...
  • Miller v. Fowler In Miller v. Fowler, the Supreme Court of Alaska held that summary judgment will rarely be proper when the discovery rule is used to determine the accrual date of a statute of limitations as determining that date is a fact intensive analysis.  In September 2009, Miller purchased an apartment building from Fowler with a promissory ...
  • Toni 1 Trust, by Tangwall v. Wacker In Toni 1 Trust, by Tangwall v. Wacker, the supreme court held that section 34.40.110(k) of the Alaska Statutes cannot deprive either federal or other states’ courts of jurisdiction over fraudulent transfer actions. In 2007, a Montana court issued multiple default judgments against Tangwall and his family, leading them to transfer property to a trust ...
  • Mattox v. State In Mattox v. State,  Prior to the altercation, ...

Civil Procedure

  • Strong v. Williams In Strong v. Williams, the supreme court held that despite pre-trial dismissal with prejudice of a landowner’s settled claims against his neighbors, res judicata and collateral estoppel do not preclude subsequent claims against a municipality on the same underlying facts.  Since 1974, John Strong has owned property in Anchorage; since the 1980s, the property has ...
  • Marcy v. Matanuska-Susitna Borough In Marcy v. Matanuska-Susitna Borough, the supreme court held that the public interest in reviewing a suit similar to other potential upcoming litigation did not override the claim’s mootness.  In 2014, Alaska passed a statewide ballot initiative to legalize marijuana, enacting section 17.38 of the Alaska Statutes.  It legalized marijuana, but allows local governments to ...
  • Lum v. Koles In Lum v. Koles, the Supreme Court of Alaska held that in opposing a motion for summary judgment, a plaintiff may overcome the defense of qualified immunity, under section 09.65.070(d)(2) of the Alaska Statutes, when the record contains at least some objective evidence capable of supporting an inference of malice.  Qualified immunity grants municipal employees ...
  • City of Kodiak v. Kodiak Public Broadcasting Corp. In City of Kodiak v. Kodiak Public Broadcasting Corp., the Supreme Court of Alaska held that courts may not award full attorneys’ fees under section 09.60.0101 of the Alaska Statutes unless a claimant raises a constitutional issue in their complaint or similar claim for relief.  In September 2015, the Kodiak Police Department reportedly used excessive ...
  • Brooks Range Petroleum Corp. v. Shearer In Brooks Range Petroleum Corp. v. Shearer, the supreme court held that the proper venue for tort claims is where the harmful force of the tort first took effect, and that proper venue for contract claims is where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred. While weighing a full-time employment ...
  • Gross v. Wilson In Gross v. Wilson, the Supreme Court of Alaska held that a properly challenged erroneous judgment is not void unless the deciding court lacked subject matter jurisdiction or violated due process.  In the final divorce agreement between Robert Gross and Dawn Wilson, Gross agreed to regularly pay Wilson half of the value of his monthly ...
  • Fink v. Anchorage In Fink v. Anchorage, the Supreme Court of Alaska held that in directly reviewing a municipal assembly’s decision to levy a special assessment, a court will defer to the Assembly’s expertise and only reverse upon proof of fraud or arbitrariness.  Decades after an earthquake destroyed the neighborhood of Turnagain Heights, lot owners petitioned the Municipality ...
  • Miller v. Fowler In Miller v. Fowler, the Supreme Court of Alaska held that summary judgment will rarely be proper when the discovery rule is used to determine the accrual date of a statute of limitations as determining that date is a fact intensive analysis.  In September 2009, Miller purchased an apartment building from Fowler with a promissory ...
  • Toni 1 Trust, by Tangwall v. Wacker In Toni 1 Trust, by Tangwall v. Wacker, the supreme court held that section 34.40.110(k) of the Alaska Statutes cannot deprive either federal or other states’ courts of jurisdiction over fraudulent transfer actions. In 2007, a Montana court issued multiple default judgments against Tangwall and his family, leading them to transfer property to a trust ...
  • Mattox v. State In Mattox v. State,  Prior to the altercation, ...