Civil Procedure

Triem v. Kake Tribal Corp.

Posted on December 21st, 2022

CIVIL PROCEDURE Supreme Court of Alaska (2022) Rachel Reiss In Triem v. Kake Tribal Corp., 513 P.3d 994 (Alaska 2022), the supreme court held that a former class action representative and former class attorney did not have standing to appeal debt forgiveness motions in a separate but related class action. (Id. at 996). In the Continue Reading »

Ray v. State

Posted on December 21st, 2022

CIVIL PROCEDURE Court of Appeals of Alaska (2022) Jake Sherman In Ray v. State, 517 P.3d 613 (Alaska Ct. App. 2022), the court of appeals held that the superior court did not err when it ordered a released prisoner who violated his probation to serve additional probation, although the released prisoner explicitly rejected such measures. Continue Reading »

Fairbanks North Star Borough v. Victory Ministries of Alaska, Inc.

Posted on December 21st, 2022

CIVIL PROCEDURE Supreme Court of Alaska (2022) Connor Sakati In Fairbanks North Star Borough v. Victory Ministries of Alaska, Inc., 515 P.3d 111 (Alaska 2022), the supreme court held that a court no longer has subject matter jurisdiction when the court closes the initial case and another case based on the same underlying controversy begins. (Id. Continue Reading »

Park v. Spayd

Posted on December 21st, 2022

CIVIL PROCEDURE Supreme Court of Alaska (2022) Flora Lipsky In Park v. Spayd, 509 P.3d 1014 (Alaska 2022), the supreme court held that, according to the discovery rule, the statute of limitations begins to run as soon as a reasonable person would have discovered the elements of the cause of action. (Id. at 1019). Beginning Continue Reading »

Mulligan v. State, Department of Law

Posted on December 21st, 2022

CIVIL PROCEDURE Supreme Court of Alaska (2022) Alex Bartlow In Mulligan v. State, Department of Law, No. S-18019, 2022 WL 2066044 (Alaska June 8, 2022) (unpublished), the supreme court held that although self-represented litigants are held to a less stringent standard, they must provide more than a cursory statement of the argument(s) on appeal in Continue Reading »

Anniskett v. Tracey

Posted on December 21st, 2022

CIVIL PROCEDURE Supreme Court of Alaska (2022) Alex Bartlow In Anniskett v. Tracey, No. S-17398, 2022 WL 2717712 (Alaska July 13, 2022) (unpublished), the supreme court affirmed the superior court’s rulings declining to set aside a probate settlement agreement and dismissing, for failure to state a claim for relief, a separate lawsuit alleging conversion of Continue Reading »

Windel v. Matanuska-Susitna Borough

Posted on May 6th, 2022

CIVIL PROCEDURE Clara Nieman 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 Continue Reading »

PADRM Gold Mine, LLC v. Perkumpulan Investor Crisis Center Dressel – WBG

Posted on May 6th, 2022

CIVIL PROCEDURE Clara Nieman 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 Continue Reading »

Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Department of Revenue

Posted on January 1st, 2022

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE Adam Beyer 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. Continue Reading »

Doan v. Banner Health

Posted on January 1st, 2022

CIVIL PROCEDURE Daniel Clark 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, Continue Reading »

Civil Procedure

Triem v. Kake Tribal Corp.

Posted on December 21st, 2022

CIVIL PROCEDURE Supreme Court of Alaska (2022) Rachel Reiss In Triem v. Kake Tribal Corp., 513 P.3d 994 (Alaska 2022), the supreme court held that a former class action representative and former class attorney did not have standing to appeal debt forgiveness motions in a separate but related class action. (Id. at 996). In the Continue Reading »

Ray v. State

Posted on December 21st, 2022

CIVIL PROCEDURE Court of Appeals of Alaska (2022) Jake Sherman In Ray v. State, 517 P.3d 613 (Alaska Ct. App. 2022), the court of appeals held that the superior court did not err when it ordered a released prisoner who violated his probation to serve additional probation, although the released prisoner explicitly rejected such measures. Continue Reading »

Fairbanks North Star Borough v. Victory Ministries of Alaska, Inc.

Posted on December 21st, 2022

CIVIL PROCEDURE Supreme Court of Alaska (2022) Connor Sakati In Fairbanks North Star Borough v. Victory Ministries of Alaska, Inc., 515 P.3d 111 (Alaska 2022), the supreme court held that a court no longer has subject matter jurisdiction when the court closes the initial case and another case based on the same underlying controversy begins. (Id. Continue Reading »

Park v. Spayd

Posted on December 21st, 2022

CIVIL PROCEDURE Supreme Court of Alaska (2022) Flora Lipsky In Park v. Spayd, 509 P.3d 1014 (Alaska 2022), the supreme court held that, according to the discovery rule, the statute of limitations begins to run as soon as a reasonable person would have discovered the elements of the cause of action. (Id. at 1019). Beginning Continue Reading »

Mulligan v. State, Department of Law

Posted on December 21st, 2022

CIVIL PROCEDURE Supreme Court of Alaska (2022) Alex Bartlow In Mulligan v. State, Department of Law, No. S-18019, 2022 WL 2066044 (Alaska June 8, 2022) (unpublished), the supreme court held that although self-represented litigants are held to a less stringent standard, they must provide more than a cursory statement of the argument(s) on appeal in Continue Reading »

Anniskett v. Tracey

Posted on December 21st, 2022

CIVIL PROCEDURE Supreme Court of Alaska (2022) Alex Bartlow In Anniskett v. Tracey, No. S-17398, 2022 WL 2717712 (Alaska July 13, 2022) (unpublished), the supreme court affirmed the superior court’s rulings declining to set aside a probate settlement agreement and dismissing, for failure to state a claim for relief, a separate lawsuit alleging conversion of Continue Reading »

Windel v. Matanuska-Susitna Borough

Posted on May 6th, 2022

CIVIL PROCEDURE Clara Nieman 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 Continue Reading »

PADRM Gold Mine, LLC v. Perkumpulan Investor Crisis Center Dressel – WBG

Posted on May 6th, 2022

CIVIL PROCEDURE Clara Nieman 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 Continue Reading »

Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Department of Revenue

Posted on January 1st, 2022

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE Adam Beyer 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. Continue Reading »

Doan v. Banner Health

Posted on January 1st, 2022

CIVIL PROCEDURE Daniel Clark 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, Continue Reading »