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 »
In Allstate Insurance Co. v. Kenick,[1] 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 Continue Reading »
In Anderson v. State, Department of Administration,[1] 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 Continue Reading »
In Department of Health and Human Services v. v. Planned Parenthood,[1] 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 Continue Reading »
In DeRemer v. State,[1] the supreme court held that dismissal of a claim absent acknowledgement of that claim was improper. DeRemer was charged with an infraction while in the custody of the Alaska Department of Correction (DOC), leading to a hearing at which DeRemer challenged the credibility of the disciplinary process and was ultimately punished. Continue Reading »
In Diamond v. Platinum Jaxx, Inc.,[1] the supreme court held that because a plaintiff failed to plead a piercing the veil theory and the individual owners were never joined to the suit or otherwise put on notice, that the plaintiff was correctly precluded from submitting evidence related to piercing the corporate veil. After being assaulted Continue Reading »
