Year In Review

State v. Ranstead

Posted on November 13th, 2018

In State v. Ranstead,[1] the supreme court held that a sentencing court need not make particularized findings to support uncontested conditions of probation, and that a defendant must object to a proposed condition of probation to preserve it for appeal. Defendant Ranstead plead guilty to second-degree sexual assault. His presentence report recommended imprisonment followed by probation Continue Reading »

Holmes v. Holmes

Posted on November 13th, 2018

In Holmes v. Holmes,[1] the supreme court held that a two-week change in custody time by a parent, and a change in a parent’s salary and employment status, constitute material changes which justify a court’s decision to modify a child support order. Branlund Holmes and Tamara Holmes shared custody of their two minor children. The Continue Reading »

Brown v. State

Posted on November 13th, 2018

In Brown v. State,[1] the supreme court held that an assertion that appellate counsel had a conflict of interest against appellate counsel, and a request to disqualify an appellate judge should be made as part of a post-conviction relief petition rather than in an immediate appeal to the supreme court. Brown petitioned the supreme-court for Continue Reading »

Lindbo v. Colaska, Inc.

Posted on November 13th, 2018

In Lindbo v. Colaska, Inc.,[1] the supreme court held that the trial court’s failure to give spoliation jury instructions was not plain error. On August 21, Lindbo, a truck driver who delivered asphalt from Colaska’s plant, arrived at the plant, stepped out of his truck, and turned his back to the machinery. The plant operator Continue Reading »

Shack v. Shack

Posted on November 13th, 2018

In Shack v. Shack, [1] the supreme court held that Alaska’s bystander theory of liability does not permit recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) when the tortfeasor and the injured relative are the same person.  In June 2014, Elizabeth Shack failed to yield the right-of-way at a stop sign causing an accident with Continue Reading »

Alaska Ass’n. of Naturopathic Physicians v. State Department of Commerce

Posted on November 13th, 2018

In Alaska Ass’n. of Naturopathic Physicians v. State Department of Commerce,[1] the supreme court held that new regulations prohibiting naturopathic physicians from using or prescribing all prescription medicines are consistent with the enabling statute. Alaska established a statutory licensing structure for naturopathy[2] in 1986, and conferred regulatory authority to the Department of Commerce in 1992.[3] Continue Reading »

Pease-Madore v. State Department of Corrections

Posted on November 13th, 2018

In Pease-Madore v. Alaska Department of Corrections[1], the supreme court held that a prisoner’s procedural due process rights in a disciplinary hearing are satisfied by the use of incident reports as evidence and audio recordings as documentation of that hearing. Pease-Madore was disciplined for making threats of bodily harm and creating a disturbance; the superior Continue Reading »

League of Conservation Voters v. Trump

Posted on November 13th, 2018

In League of Conservation Voters v. Trump,[1] the district court held that the potential harm to the oceans from an executive order was sufficiently imminent, geographically specific, and particularized to establish standing under Article III. Using power granted by Congress in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (“OCSLA”), President Obama withdrew 128 million acres of Continue Reading »

State v. Bell

Posted on November 5th, 2018

In State v. Bell,[1] the court of appeals held that section 12.55.027(d) of the Alaska Statutes requires a defendant lose all credit toward their sentence for a period of release on bail subject to electronic monitoring if it ends because the defendant commits a new crime. In 2015, section 12.55.027(d) of the Alaska Statutes was Continue Reading »

Osborne v. State

Posted on November 5th, 2018

In Osborne v. State,[1] the court of appeals held that, to obtain a search warrant covering anyone arriving at a premises during the execution of the warrant, the police must affirmatively establish good reason to believe that any and all persons who arrive will likely be participants in the criminal activity investigated. In Osborne, the police Continue Reading »

Year In Review

State v. Ranstead

Posted on November 13th, 2018

In State v. Ranstead,[1] the supreme court held that a sentencing court need not make particularized findings to support uncontested conditions of probation, and that a defendant must object to a proposed condition of probation to preserve it for appeal. Defendant Ranstead plead guilty to second-degree sexual assault. His presentence report recommended imprisonment followed by probation Continue Reading »

Holmes v. Holmes

Posted on November 13th, 2018

In Holmes v. Holmes,[1] the supreme court held that a two-week change in custody time by a parent, and a change in a parent’s salary and employment status, constitute material changes which justify a court’s decision to modify a child support order. Branlund Holmes and Tamara Holmes shared custody of their two minor children. The Continue Reading »

Brown v. State

Posted on November 13th, 2018

In Brown v. State,[1] the supreme court held that an assertion that appellate counsel had a conflict of interest against appellate counsel, and a request to disqualify an appellate judge should be made as part of a post-conviction relief petition rather than in an immediate appeal to the supreme court. Brown petitioned the supreme-court for Continue Reading »

Lindbo v. Colaska, Inc.

Posted on November 13th, 2018

In Lindbo v. Colaska, Inc.,[1] the supreme court held that the trial court’s failure to give spoliation jury instructions was not plain error. On August 21, Lindbo, a truck driver who delivered asphalt from Colaska’s plant, arrived at the plant, stepped out of his truck, and turned his back to the machinery. The plant operator Continue Reading »

Shack v. Shack

Posted on November 13th, 2018

In Shack v. Shack, [1] the supreme court held that Alaska’s bystander theory of liability does not permit recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) when the tortfeasor and the injured relative are the same person.  In June 2014, Elizabeth Shack failed to yield the right-of-way at a stop sign causing an accident with Continue Reading »

Alaska Ass’n. of Naturopathic Physicians v. State Department of Commerce

Posted on November 13th, 2018

In Alaska Ass’n. of Naturopathic Physicians v. State Department of Commerce,[1] the supreme court held that new regulations prohibiting naturopathic physicians from using or prescribing all prescription medicines are consistent with the enabling statute. Alaska established a statutory licensing structure for naturopathy[2] in 1986, and conferred regulatory authority to the Department of Commerce in 1992.[3] Continue Reading »

Pease-Madore v. State Department of Corrections

Posted on November 13th, 2018

In Pease-Madore v. Alaska Department of Corrections[1], the supreme court held that a prisoner’s procedural due process rights in a disciplinary hearing are satisfied by the use of incident reports as evidence and audio recordings as documentation of that hearing. Pease-Madore was disciplined for making threats of bodily harm and creating a disturbance; the superior Continue Reading »

League of Conservation Voters v. Trump

Posted on November 13th, 2018

In League of Conservation Voters v. Trump,[1] the district court held that the potential harm to the oceans from an executive order was sufficiently imminent, geographically specific, and particularized to establish standing under Article III. Using power granted by Congress in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (“OCSLA”), President Obama withdrew 128 million acres of Continue Reading »

State v. Bell

Posted on November 5th, 2018

In State v. Bell,[1] the court of appeals held that section 12.55.027(d) of the Alaska Statutes requires a defendant lose all credit toward their sentence for a period of release on bail subject to electronic monitoring if it ends because the defendant commits a new crime. In 2015, section 12.55.027(d) of the Alaska Statutes was Continue Reading »

Osborne v. State

Posted on November 5th, 2018

In Osborne v. State,[1] the court of appeals held that, to obtain a search warrant covering anyone arriving at a premises during the execution of the warrant, the police must affirmatively establish good reason to believe that any and all persons who arrive will likely be participants in the criminal activity investigated. In Osborne, the police Continue Reading »