Year In Review

Hahn v. Geico Choice Ins. Co.

Posted on November 26th, 2018

In Hahn v. Geico Choice Ins. Co.,[1] the supreme court held that the “reasonable” interpretation of an insurance policy involves an examination of  “(1) the language of the disputed provisions in the policy, (2) other provisions in the policy, (3) extrinsic evidence, and (4) case law interpreting similar provisions.” Hahn was stopped at a red Continue Reading »

Jordan v. State

Posted on November 26th, 2018

In Jordan v. State,[1] the Supreme Court of Alaska held (1) that failure to instruct the jury on an essential element of a crime is a structural error and so is not susceptible to harmless error review, and (2) that a mental state as toward the weight of marijuana in a defendant’s possession is an Continue Reading »

Dunmore v. Dunmore

Posted on November 26th, 2018

In Dunmore v. Dunmore[1], the Supreme Court of Alaska held that while a court cannot lawfully divide social security benefits belonging to either spouse, courts have discretion to consider them as evidence of the parties’ respective financial positions when equitably dividing marital property. Gloria and Richard Dunmore were married in 1975, separated in July 2007, Continue Reading »

Pederson v. Arctic Slope Reg’l Corp.

Posted on November 13th, 2018

In Pederson v. Arctic Slope Reg’l Corp.,[1] the supreme court held that Alaska law permits corporations to unilaterally demand a reasonable confidentiality agreement when shareholders request copies of the shareholder list. Pederson requested a shareholder list from Arctic Slop Reg’l Corp. (ASRC). ASRC agreed under the condition that Pederson sign a confidentiality agreement, but after Continue Reading »

Riddle v. Lanser

Posted on November 13th, 2018

In Riddle v. Lanser,[1] the supreme court held that the Right to Farm Act does not shield individuals from nuisance liability where the activity is not part of an “agricultural facility” or “agricultural operation at an agricultural facility” before becoming a nuisance. In 2005, Riddle acquired property covered by a farm conservation plan, and he Continue Reading »

In re Reger

Posted on November 13th, 2018

In In re Reger[1], the supreme court adopted the recommendations of the bar association’s disciplinary board, holding that violations of the ethics rules are properly attributed to an attorney when the violations occurr due to improper delegation of authority to a non-attorney assistant, and inadequate supervision of that assistant. Lawrence Reger hired KW, a non-attorney, Continue Reading »

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 »

Year In Review

Hahn v. Geico Choice Ins. Co.

Posted on November 26th, 2018

In Hahn v. Geico Choice Ins. Co.,[1] the supreme court held that the “reasonable” interpretation of an insurance policy involves an examination of  “(1) the language of the disputed provisions in the policy, (2) other provisions in the policy, (3) extrinsic evidence, and (4) case law interpreting similar provisions.” Hahn was stopped at a red Continue Reading »

Jordan v. State

Posted on November 26th, 2018

In Jordan v. State,[1] the Supreme Court of Alaska held (1) that failure to instruct the jury on an essential element of a crime is a structural error and so is not susceptible to harmless error review, and (2) that a mental state as toward the weight of marijuana in a defendant’s possession is an Continue Reading »

Dunmore v. Dunmore

Posted on November 26th, 2018

In Dunmore v. Dunmore[1], the Supreme Court of Alaska held that while a court cannot lawfully divide social security benefits belonging to either spouse, courts have discretion to consider them as evidence of the parties’ respective financial positions when equitably dividing marital property. Gloria and Richard Dunmore were married in 1975, separated in July 2007, Continue Reading »

Pederson v. Arctic Slope Reg’l Corp.

Posted on November 13th, 2018

In Pederson v. Arctic Slope Reg’l Corp.,[1] the supreme court held that Alaska law permits corporations to unilaterally demand a reasonable confidentiality agreement when shareholders request copies of the shareholder list. Pederson requested a shareholder list from Arctic Slop Reg’l Corp. (ASRC). ASRC agreed under the condition that Pederson sign a confidentiality agreement, but after Continue Reading »

Riddle v. Lanser

Posted on November 13th, 2018

In Riddle v. Lanser,[1] the supreme court held that the Right to Farm Act does not shield individuals from nuisance liability where the activity is not part of an “agricultural facility” or “agricultural operation at an agricultural facility” before becoming a nuisance. In 2005, Riddle acquired property covered by a farm conservation plan, and he Continue Reading »

In re Reger

Posted on November 13th, 2018

In In re Reger[1], the supreme court adopted the recommendations of the bar association’s disciplinary board, holding that violations of the ethics rules are properly attributed to an attorney when the violations occurr due to improper delegation of authority to a non-attorney assistant, and inadequate supervision of that assistant. Lawrence Reger hired KW, a non-attorney, Continue Reading »

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 »