Year In Review

Powell v. State

Posted on April 14th, 2021

CRIMINAL LAW Andrew Webb In Powell v. State, the court of appeals held that, in light of new case law, a Rule 60(b) motion may be filed to challenge erroneous procedural rulings in post-conviction relief proceedings, but final judgments are not entitled to relief based on prospective application of new case law. Following a jury Continue Reading »

In re Disciplinary Matter Involving Stockler

Posted on April 14th, 2021

ETHICS Christopher Dodd In In re Disciplinary Matter Involving Stockler, the supreme court held that suspension was the appropriate sanction for an attorney’s misconduct, since willfully failing to file income tax returns was a violation of ALASKA RULES OF PROF’L CONDUCT 8.4(b)(“a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as Continue Reading »

Mauritsen v. Mauritsen

Posted on April 14th, 2021

FAMILY LAW Daisy Gray In Mauritsen v. Mauristen, the supreme court held that courts should interpret the phrase “presently resides” in the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) consistently with “residency” in AS 0.01.10.055. In 2016, the superior court entered a custody agreement that provided equal shared physical custody between Mauritsen and Mauritsen Continue Reading »

Matter of Arthur A.

Posted on April 14th, 2021

HEALTH LAW Macklin Willigan In Matter of Arthur A., the supreme court held that an individual subject to involuntary commitment proceedings has an implied statutory right to self-representation, and if the individual clearly and unequivocally invokes this right—though not absolute—the superior court must hold a preliminary hearing and consider the factors outlined in McCracken v. Continue Reading »

Rosenbaum v. Shaw

Posted on April 14th, 2021

FAMILY LAW Kate Goldberg In Rosenbaum v. Shaw, the supreme court held that a father was not entitled to credit or reimbursement for overpaid child support when the mother was receiving children’s insurance benefit (CIB) payments from the Social Security Administration (SSA) in addition to the regular monthly child support payments from the father. In Continue Reading »

Peidlow v. Williams

Posted on April 14th, 2021

NATIVE LAW Kristen M. Renberg, Ph.D. In Peidlow v. Williams,1the supreme court held that the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) requires a superior court that receives a tribal court order to first determine whether the order was issued in an ICWA child custody proceeding, and if it was, to follow the full faith and credit Continue Reading »

Johnson v. Municipality of Anchorage

Posted on March 26th, 2021

CRIMINAL LAW Daisy Gray   Johnson v. Municipality of Anchorage In Johnson v. Municipality of Anchorage, 475 P.3d 1128 (Alaska Ct. App. 2020), the court of appeals held that although a judge’s prior service as a municipal prosecutor did not disqualify her from presiding over a criminal case, her prior service as a municipal prosecutor Continue Reading »

In re Tiffany O.

Posted on March 26th, 2021

FAMILY LAW Natalie Howard   In re Tiffany O. In In re Tiffany O., 467 P.3d 1076 (Alaska 2020), the supreme court held that removing a guardian who relied on prayer instead of other reasonable forms of health care did not violate the Alaska Constitution’s free exercise clause due to the state’s compelling interest in Continue Reading »

Hayes v. State

Posted on March 26th, 2021

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Daisy Gray   Hayes v. State In Hayes v. State, 474 P.3d 1179 (Alaska Ct. App. 2020), the court of appeals held that the hearsay exception for a child crime victim’s recorded statement in Alaska Evidence Rule 801(d)(3) covers statements where the victim is under sixteen years old at the time of the Continue Reading »

Forrer v. State

Posted on March 26th, 2021

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Macklin Willigan   Forrer v. State In Forrer v. State, 471 P.3d 569 (Alaska 2020), the supreme court held that a debt-creating statute was unconstitutional because (1) subject-to-appropriations bonds are “debt” for purposes of Article IX, section 8 of the Alaska Constitution—and thus require Alaska voters’ authorization—and (2) the legislative scheme authorizing the Continue Reading »

Year In Review

Powell v. State

Posted on April 14th, 2021

CRIMINAL LAW Andrew Webb In Powell v. State, the court of appeals held that, in light of new case law, a Rule 60(b) motion may be filed to challenge erroneous procedural rulings in post-conviction relief proceedings, but final judgments are not entitled to relief based on prospective application of new case law. Following a jury Continue Reading »

In re Disciplinary Matter Involving Stockler

Posted on April 14th, 2021

ETHICS Christopher Dodd In In re Disciplinary Matter Involving Stockler, the supreme court held that suspension was the appropriate sanction for an attorney’s misconduct, since willfully failing to file income tax returns was a violation of ALASKA RULES OF PROF’L CONDUCT 8.4(b)(“a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as Continue Reading »

Mauritsen v. Mauritsen

Posted on April 14th, 2021

FAMILY LAW Daisy Gray In Mauritsen v. Mauristen, the supreme court held that courts should interpret the phrase “presently resides” in the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) consistently with “residency” in AS 0.01.10.055. In 2016, the superior court entered a custody agreement that provided equal shared physical custody between Mauritsen and Mauritsen Continue Reading »

Matter of Arthur A.

Posted on April 14th, 2021

HEALTH LAW Macklin Willigan In Matter of Arthur A., the supreme court held that an individual subject to involuntary commitment proceedings has an implied statutory right to self-representation, and if the individual clearly and unequivocally invokes this right—though not absolute—the superior court must hold a preliminary hearing and consider the factors outlined in McCracken v. Continue Reading »

Rosenbaum v. Shaw

Posted on April 14th, 2021

FAMILY LAW Kate Goldberg In Rosenbaum v. Shaw, the supreme court held that a father was not entitled to credit or reimbursement for overpaid child support when the mother was receiving children’s insurance benefit (CIB) payments from the Social Security Administration (SSA) in addition to the regular monthly child support payments from the father. In Continue Reading »

Peidlow v. Williams

Posted on April 14th, 2021

NATIVE LAW Kristen M. Renberg, Ph.D. In Peidlow v. Williams,1the supreme court held that the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) requires a superior court that receives a tribal court order to first determine whether the order was issued in an ICWA child custody proceeding, and if it was, to follow the full faith and credit Continue Reading »

Johnson v. Municipality of Anchorage

Posted on March 26th, 2021

CRIMINAL LAW Daisy Gray   Johnson v. Municipality of Anchorage In Johnson v. Municipality of Anchorage, 475 P.3d 1128 (Alaska Ct. App. 2020), the court of appeals held that although a judge’s prior service as a municipal prosecutor did not disqualify her from presiding over a criminal case, her prior service as a municipal prosecutor Continue Reading »

In re Tiffany O.

Posted on March 26th, 2021

FAMILY LAW Natalie Howard   In re Tiffany O. In In re Tiffany O., 467 P.3d 1076 (Alaska 2020), the supreme court held that removing a guardian who relied on prayer instead of other reasonable forms of health care did not violate the Alaska Constitution’s free exercise clause due to the state’s compelling interest in Continue Reading »

Hayes v. State

Posted on March 26th, 2021

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Daisy Gray   Hayes v. State In Hayes v. State, 474 P.3d 1179 (Alaska Ct. App. 2020), the court of appeals held that the hearsay exception for a child crime victim’s recorded statement in Alaska Evidence Rule 801(d)(3) covers statements where the victim is under sixteen years old at the time of the Continue Reading »

Forrer v. State

Posted on March 26th, 2021

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Macklin Willigan   Forrer v. State In Forrer v. State, 471 P.3d 569 (Alaska 2020), the supreme court held that a debt-creating statute was unconstitutional because (1) subject-to-appropriations bonds are “debt” for purposes of Article IX, section 8 of the Alaska Constitution—and thus require Alaska voters’ authorization—and (2) the legislative scheme authorizing the Continue Reading »