- Windel v. Matanuska-Susitna Borough
In Windel v. Matanuska-Susitna Borough, 496 P.3d 392 (Alaska 2021), the supreme court held that (1) an unchallenged res judicata judgment in a prior case bound the parties in the current proceeding and (2) a plaintiff’s pursuit of bad faith claims which had already been decided in prior cases justified an enhanced award ...
- PADRM Gold Mine, LLC v. Perkumpulan Investor Crisis Center Dressel – WBG
In PADRM Gold Mine, LLC v. Perkumpulan Investor Crisis Center Dressel – WBG, 498 P.3d 1073 (Alaska 2021), the supreme court held that legal malpractice claims are not involuntarily assignable but declined to decide whether such claims are voluntarily assignable. (Id. at 1078). A group of Indonesian citizens (Perkumpulan) filed a federal fraud ...
- Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Department of Revenue
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE
In Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Department of Revenue, 488 P.3d 951 (Alaska 2021), the supreme court held that a Department of Revenue advisory bulletin was not a challengeable regulation for the purposes of the state’s Administrative Procedures Act and that the parties’ tax dispute was therefore not ripe. (Id. at 952). ...
- Doan v. Banner Health
In Doan v. Banner Health, 485 P.3d 537 (Alaska 2021), the supreme court held that settlement funds may be withheld for non-settling defendants’ eventual attorneys’ fees; however, the court also held that reserved settlement funds may be partially distributed for the payment of plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees. (Id. at 542–45). In 2013, Doan’s estate ...
- Norman v. State, Department of Health & Social Services
In Norman v. State, Department of Health & Social Services, the supreme court held that a court may not accept a party’s offer as proof of the facts if the opposing party objects. The Department of Health & Social Services Office of Children’s Services (OCS) initiated proceedings to terminate a father’s parental rights. ...
- Hedrick v. State
Hedrick v. State
In Hedrick v. State, 474 P.3d 4 (Alaska Ct. App. 2020), the court of appeals upheld a criminal defendant’s waiver of his right to a jury trial because the trial judge had adequately advised him of his right. (Id. at 5). Hunter Hedrick was charged with multiple felony assaults for an ...
- Alleva v. Municipality of Anchorage
Alleva v. Municipality of Anchorage
In Alleva v. Municipality of Anchorage, 467 P.3d 1083 (Alaska 2020), the supreme court held that the superior court properly considered a settlement agreement that plaintiffs referenced in but did not attach to their complaint in granting defendants’ motion to dismiss, and that the settlement agreement prevented plaintiffs’ suit. ...
- Allstate Insurance Co. v. Kenick
In Allstate Insurance Co. v. Kenick, the Supreme Court held that where a federal declaratory judgment determined the absence of a necessary element of a different state court claim, those bringing the state claim were precluded from relitigating the issue. After an automobile accident in which Angelina Trailov was injured as a passenger, she and ...
- Anderson v. State, Department of Administration
In Anderson v. State, Department of Administration, the supreme court upheld the superior court’s finding that a suit was barred by the doctrine of laches as it was brought after an unreasonable delay that would cause the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) undue prejudice. In 1992, Anderson replaced his California driver’s license, which contained a ...
- Department of Health and Human Services v. v. Planned Parenthood
In Department of Health and Human Services v. v. Planned Parenthood, the supreme court held that reasonable travel expenses were recoverable as attorney’s fees. As the prevailing party, Planned Parenthood was entitled to have the Department of Health and Human Services pay for the cost to litigate the case. The supreme court held that the ...