Year In Review

Jude M. v. State

Posted on May 3rd, 2018

In Jude M. v. State,[1] the supreme court held a parent’s parental “rights of custody” may be deemed “suspended” for the purposes of appointing a guardian for their unmarried, minor child, even though the parent still retains “residual rights” of custody.[2] The Office of Children’s Services (“OCS”) petitioned to terminate M’s parental rights of custody Continue Reading »

State v. Shea

Posted on May 3rd, 2018

In State v. Shea,[1] the supreme court held that the administrative law judge’s decision to deny an employee occupational disability benefits because prolonged sitting during employment was not a proximate cause of the employee’s disability was supported by substantial evidence.[2] Shea presented evidence that she suffered from chronic pain in the form of ilioinginal neuralgia Continue Reading »

Easley v. Easley

Posted on May 3rd, 2018

In Easley v. Easley[1], the supreme court affirmed the lower court’s order that a spouse who has received notice of and been given numerous opportunities to be heard regarding the enforcement of a settlement agreement previous to a judgment does not have his or her due process rights violated.[2] Kevin Easley and Tammy Easley filed Continue Reading »

Alaska Fur Gallery, Inc. v. Tok Hwang

Posted on May 3rd, 2018

In Alaska Fur Gallery, Inv. V. Tok Hwang[1], the supreme court held that a sublease provision which included an option to purchase the premises with the lease amount to be applied to a negotiated purchase price was too indefinite to enforce as an option to purchase.[2] Tok Hwang subleased a leasehold to Alaska Fur Gallery Continue Reading »

Recreational Data Services, Inc. v. Trimble Navigation, Ltd.

Posted on May 3rd, 2018

In Recreational Data Services, Inc. v. Trimble Navigation, Ltd.,[1] the Supreme Court of Alaska held that in a suit in tort the fact of harm and the amount of damages are proved separately, and that if the former is proved, but not the latter, nominal damages may still be recovered.[2] Recreational Data Services (RDS) had Continue Reading »

Haines v. Comfort Keepers, Inc.

Posted on May 3rd, 2018

In Haines v. Comfort Keepers, Inc.[1], the supreme court held that: (1) the trial court abused its discretion by granting the conditional application for entry of default without giving effect to the representative’s want for a jury trial on damages and (2) it was error not to award damages or attorney’s fees when allegations of Continue Reading »

Dennis O. v. Stephanie O.

Posted on May 3rd, 2018

In Dennis O. v. Stephanie O.,[1] the supreme court held that the Alaska Constitution’s due process clause does not require an indigent parent be provided counsel in a custody hearing when the other parent is represented by private counsel unless lack of counsel would effectively deny the indigent parent the right to argue the case.[2] Continue Reading »

Wright v. Anding

Posted on May 3rd, 2018

In Wright v. Anding,[1] the supreme court held that a prisoner does not make a valid claim of medical mistreatment when conflicting physician opinions lead the Department of Correction’s (DOC) to deny medically necessary treatment.[2] Wright, an inmate, began complaining of loss of hearing and ear infections in 2009 and was treated.[3] Following an appointment Continue Reading »

Barry H. v. State, Department of Health & Social Services

Posted on April 8th, 2018

In Barry H. v. State, Department of Health & Social Services,[1] the supreme court held that trial courts, in determining whether to allow self-representation in a Child in Need of Aid (CINA) proceeding, must apply the standard developed under McCracken v. State.[2] The Office of Children’s Services (OCS) took emergency custody of Barry’s children after Continue Reading »

Treptow v. State

Posted on April 8th, 2018

In Treptow v. State,[1] the court of appeals held that under Criminal Rule 23(a), for both felony and misdemeanor cases, defendant can waive jury trial only when the government consents and court approves the waiver.[2] Defendant was charged with felony driving under the influence due to his two prior DUI convictions within the past decade: Continue Reading »

Year In Review

Jude M. v. State

Posted on May 3rd, 2018

In Jude M. v. State,[1] the supreme court held a parent’s parental “rights of custody” may be deemed “suspended” for the purposes of appointing a guardian for their unmarried, minor child, even though the parent still retains “residual rights” of custody.[2] The Office of Children’s Services (“OCS”) petitioned to terminate M’s parental rights of custody Continue Reading »

State v. Shea

Posted on May 3rd, 2018

In State v. Shea,[1] the supreme court held that the administrative law judge’s decision to deny an employee occupational disability benefits because prolonged sitting during employment was not a proximate cause of the employee’s disability was supported by substantial evidence.[2] Shea presented evidence that she suffered from chronic pain in the form of ilioinginal neuralgia Continue Reading »

Easley v. Easley

Posted on May 3rd, 2018

In Easley v. Easley[1], the supreme court affirmed the lower court’s order that a spouse who has received notice of and been given numerous opportunities to be heard regarding the enforcement of a settlement agreement previous to a judgment does not have his or her due process rights violated.[2] Kevin Easley and Tammy Easley filed Continue Reading »

Alaska Fur Gallery, Inc. v. Tok Hwang

Posted on May 3rd, 2018

In Alaska Fur Gallery, Inv. V. Tok Hwang[1], the supreme court held that a sublease provision which included an option to purchase the premises with the lease amount to be applied to a negotiated purchase price was too indefinite to enforce as an option to purchase.[2] Tok Hwang subleased a leasehold to Alaska Fur Gallery Continue Reading »

Recreational Data Services, Inc. v. Trimble Navigation, Ltd.

Posted on May 3rd, 2018

In Recreational Data Services, Inc. v. Trimble Navigation, Ltd.,[1] the Supreme Court of Alaska held that in a suit in tort the fact of harm and the amount of damages are proved separately, and that if the former is proved, but not the latter, nominal damages may still be recovered.[2] Recreational Data Services (RDS) had Continue Reading »

Haines v. Comfort Keepers, Inc.

Posted on May 3rd, 2018

In Haines v. Comfort Keepers, Inc.[1], the supreme court held that: (1) the trial court abused its discretion by granting the conditional application for entry of default without giving effect to the representative’s want for a jury trial on damages and (2) it was error not to award damages or attorney’s fees when allegations of Continue Reading »

Dennis O. v. Stephanie O.

Posted on May 3rd, 2018

In Dennis O. v. Stephanie O.,[1] the supreme court held that the Alaska Constitution’s due process clause does not require an indigent parent be provided counsel in a custody hearing when the other parent is represented by private counsel unless lack of counsel would effectively deny the indigent parent the right to argue the case.[2] Continue Reading »

Wright v. Anding

Posted on May 3rd, 2018

In Wright v. Anding,[1] the supreme court held that a prisoner does not make a valid claim of medical mistreatment when conflicting physician opinions lead the Department of Correction’s (DOC) to deny medically necessary treatment.[2] Wright, an inmate, began complaining of loss of hearing and ear infections in 2009 and was treated.[3] Following an appointment Continue Reading »

Barry H. v. State, Department of Health & Social Services

Posted on April 8th, 2018

In Barry H. v. State, Department of Health & Social Services,[1] the supreme court held that trial courts, in determining whether to allow self-representation in a Child in Need of Aid (CINA) proceeding, must apply the standard developed under McCracken v. State.[2] The Office of Children’s Services (OCS) took emergency custody of Barry’s children after Continue Reading »

Treptow v. State

Posted on April 8th, 2018

In Treptow v. State,[1] the court of appeals held that under Criminal Rule 23(a), for both felony and misdemeanor cases, defendant can waive jury trial only when the government consents and court approves the waiver.[2] Defendant was charged with felony driving under the influence due to his two prior DUI convictions within the past decade: Continue Reading »