Year In Review

Caitlyn E. v. State of Alaska, Dep’t of Health & Social Services

Posted on April 8th, 2018

In Caitlyn E. v. State of Alaska, Dep’t of Health & Social Services,[1] the supreme court held that under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), an individual without expertise in substance abuse could still testify as an expert in a child custody proceeding involving substance abuse, if the individual had the requisite expertise in Indian Continue Reading »

Judd v. Burns

Posted on April 8th, 2018

In Judd v. Burns,[1] the supreme court held that a trial court abuses its discretion by modifying legal custody in a manner that was neither requested by either party, supported by evidence demonstrating the need for the modification, nor at issue to the parties.[2] Judd and Burns divorced and were able to agree on a Continue Reading »

McAnally v. Thompson

Posted on April 8th, 2018

In McAnally v. Thompson,[1] the supreme court held that a defendant’s awareness of the facts underlying a claim does not permit a plaintiff to add such a claim after the filing of pleadings without leave of the court or consent of the adverse party.[2] McAnally was terminated from his position as police captain for the Continue Reading »

Comsult LLC v. Girdwood Mining Co.

Posted on April 8th, 2018

In Comsult LLC v. Girdwood Mining Co.,[1] the supreme court held that stock and royalty interests are property, and that suit to enforce rights to them is not barred by Alaska securities law.[2] Girdwood Mining Company (Girdwood) and Comsult LLC (Comsult) entered into two agreements, the business relationship soured, and the parties executed a Memorandum Continue Reading »

Alaska Miners Ass’n v. State, Division of Elections

Posted on April 8th, 2018

In Alaska Miners Ass’n v. State, Division of Elections,[1] the supreme court held that under section 09.60.010(c) of the Alaska Statutes, constitutional claimants (if they lose the litigation) are not required to pay the attorneys’ fees for the prevailing party; a party is not a constitutional claimant if it has received a direct economic benefit, Continue Reading »

Daggett v. Feeney

Posted on April 8th, 2018

In Daggett v. Feeney,[1] the court held that (1) companies that provide wind turbine installation must be registered as specialty steel erection contractors, and (2) in calculating the setoff amount under a rescinded contract, the liable company’s offset amount can only equal that greater than any profit received.[2] Feeney entered into a contract with Alaskan Continue Reading »

Radebaugh v. State, Department of Health & Social Services

Posted on April 8th, 2018

In Radebaugh v. State,[1] the supreme court held that an administrative agency decision is subject to the highly deferential substantial evidence test unless it reverses an administrative law judge’s underlying factual determination that was based on credibility determination, to which the agency’s decision is then subject to a heightened scrutiny standard.[2] Radebaugh was a 70-year-old Continue Reading »

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

Posted on April 8th, 2018

In Matthew H. v. State, Department of Health & Social Services,[1] the supreme court held that a parent’s parental rights can be terminated when the parent’s significant unresolved mental health issues are the root cause of the child’s harm, even if the parent makes efforts to resolve the physical conditions of his home.[2] In May Continue Reading »

Wyatt v. State

Posted on February 6th, 2018

In Wyatt v. State,[1] the court of appeals held that a petitioner’s application for post-conviction relief need only set forth a prima facie case for relief to survive the pleadings stage.[2] Toward the end of Wyatt’s criminal trial for murder and evidence tampering, his attorney announced that he intended to rest his case without putting Continue Reading »

Jeter v. State

Posted on February 6th, 2018

In Jeter v. State,[1] the court of appeals held that when defendants who are on probation commit a new crime and receive a sentence for their new crime plus probation revocation sentences based on the same crime, these sentences can be appealed individually.[2] While on probation in two criminal cases, Jeter committed a third crime.[3] Continue Reading »

Year In Review

Caitlyn E. v. State of Alaska, Dep’t of Health & Social Services

Posted on April 8th, 2018

In Caitlyn E. v. State of Alaska, Dep’t of Health & Social Services,[1] the supreme court held that under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), an individual without expertise in substance abuse could still testify as an expert in a child custody proceeding involving substance abuse, if the individual had the requisite expertise in Indian Continue Reading »

Judd v. Burns

Posted on April 8th, 2018

In Judd v. Burns,[1] the supreme court held that a trial court abuses its discretion by modifying legal custody in a manner that was neither requested by either party, supported by evidence demonstrating the need for the modification, nor at issue to the parties.[2] Judd and Burns divorced and were able to agree on a Continue Reading »

McAnally v. Thompson

Posted on April 8th, 2018

In McAnally v. Thompson,[1] the supreme court held that a defendant’s awareness of the facts underlying a claim does not permit a plaintiff to add such a claim after the filing of pleadings without leave of the court or consent of the adverse party.[2] McAnally was terminated from his position as police captain for the Continue Reading »

Comsult LLC v. Girdwood Mining Co.

Posted on April 8th, 2018

In Comsult LLC v. Girdwood Mining Co.,[1] the supreme court held that stock and royalty interests are property, and that suit to enforce rights to them is not barred by Alaska securities law.[2] Girdwood Mining Company (Girdwood) and Comsult LLC (Comsult) entered into two agreements, the business relationship soured, and the parties executed a Memorandum Continue Reading »

Alaska Miners Ass’n v. State, Division of Elections

Posted on April 8th, 2018

In Alaska Miners Ass’n v. State, Division of Elections,[1] the supreme court held that under section 09.60.010(c) of the Alaska Statutes, constitutional claimants (if they lose the litigation) are not required to pay the attorneys’ fees for the prevailing party; a party is not a constitutional claimant if it has received a direct economic benefit, Continue Reading »

Daggett v. Feeney

Posted on April 8th, 2018

In Daggett v. Feeney,[1] the court held that (1) companies that provide wind turbine installation must be registered as specialty steel erection contractors, and (2) in calculating the setoff amount under a rescinded contract, the liable company’s offset amount can only equal that greater than any profit received.[2] Feeney entered into a contract with Alaskan Continue Reading »

Radebaugh v. State, Department of Health & Social Services

Posted on April 8th, 2018

In Radebaugh v. State,[1] the supreme court held that an administrative agency decision is subject to the highly deferential substantial evidence test unless it reverses an administrative law judge’s underlying factual determination that was based on credibility determination, to which the agency’s decision is then subject to a heightened scrutiny standard.[2] Radebaugh was a 70-year-old Continue Reading »

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

Posted on April 8th, 2018

In Matthew H. v. State, Department of Health & Social Services,[1] the supreme court held that a parent’s parental rights can be terminated when the parent’s significant unresolved mental health issues are the root cause of the child’s harm, even if the parent makes efforts to resolve the physical conditions of his home.[2] In May Continue Reading »

Wyatt v. State

Posted on February 6th, 2018

In Wyatt v. State,[1] the court of appeals held that a petitioner’s application for post-conviction relief need only set forth a prima facie case for relief to survive the pleadings stage.[2] Toward the end of Wyatt’s criminal trial for murder and evidence tampering, his attorney announced that he intended to rest his case without putting Continue Reading »

Jeter v. State

Posted on February 6th, 2018

In Jeter v. State,[1] the court of appeals held that when defendants who are on probation commit a new crime and receive a sentence for their new crime plus probation revocation sentences based on the same crime, these sentences can be appealed individually.[2] While on probation in two criminal cases, Jeter committed a third crime.[3] Continue Reading »