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 »
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Alaska (2022) Alex Bartlow In Mulligan v. State, Department of Law, No. S-18019, 2022 WL 2066044 (Alaska June 8, 2022) (unpublished), the supreme court held that although self-represented litigants are held to a less stringent standard, they must provide more than a cursory statement of the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 »
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Court of Alaska (2022) Alex Bartlow In Anniskett v. Tracey, No. S-17398, 2022 WL 2717712 (Alaska July 13, 2022) (unpublished), the supreme court affirmed the superior court’s rulings declining to set aside a probate settlement agreement and dismissing, for failure to state a claim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 »
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 »
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 »
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 »
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 Savannah Artusi 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 Continue Reading »
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Natalie Howard 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 Continue Reading »
CIVIL PROCEDURE Daisy Gray 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 Continue Reading »
