In Bravo v. Aker,[1] the supreme court held that a next friend cannot represent a presumedly incompetent individual without counsel. Almost 20 years before the present litigation concerning a personal injury claim, appellant Helen Bravo was hurt in a boating accident. Bravo claimed this accident – which was allegedly due to appellees’ conduct – caused Continue Reading »
In Doan v. Banner Health, Inc.,[1] the supreme court held that a viable bystander claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) does not require the plaintiff’s contemporaneous realization that the injuries they observed were negligently caused. Doan accompanied her ill daughter to the hospital. While at the hospital, Doan was directed to leave her Continue Reading »
In Haight v. City & Borough of Juneau,[1] the supreme court held that the municipal’s decision not to regulate safety requirement for a lake was not a waiver of sovereign immunity. Haight sued the City of Juneau for the wrongful death of her daughter after she died from a boating accident that occurred on Auke Continue Reading »
In Weston v. AKHappytime, LLC,[1] the Alaskan Supreme court held undiscounted medical bills are admissible at trial. Weston slipped and fell on ice in the parking lot of a hotel owned by AKHappytime, fracturing her right wrist and leg in the process. Her hospital bills totaled up to over $135,000, but Medicare settled the bills Continue Reading »
In All Am. Oilfield, LLC v. Cook Inlet Energy, LLC,[1] the supreme court ruled that a contractor was not entitled to a mineral dump lien on natural gas that had not been extracted, hoisted, and raised from its natural reservoir. Cook Inlet controlled oil and gas wells in southcentral Alaska and contracted with All American Continue Reading »
In Black v. Whitestone Estates Condo. Homeowners’ Ass’n,[1] the supreme court held that a condominium had the authority to disregard payment directives concerning the back-payment of unpaid fees when it was provided for in the governing declaration. Craig Black and Camille Brill (Blacks) claimed that the arrangement for monthly dues for the maintenance of driveways Continue Reading »
In Collins v. Hall,[1] the supreme court held that in a property dispute between adjoining landowners, the lower court did not clearly err in concluding that no boundary had been established by acquiescence and in finding that the restrictive covenants had been abandoned. The Collinses and Halls disputed the boundary dividing their land in a Continue Reading »
In Griswold v. Homer Board of Adjustment,[1] the supreme court held that standing determinations concerning an “aggrieved person” is interpreted broadly, despite the legislature limiting standing in similarly related land-use decisions. Griswold appealed the Homer Advisory Planning Commission’s decision to grant a conditional use permit to another property within his zoning district to the Homer Continue Reading »
In In re Estate of Hatten,[1] the supreme court held surviving domestic partners do not inherit any of the intestate’s property as a testamentary matter. A man and woman lived together for twenty years in a domestic partnership before the man died intestate. The surviving domestic partner filed a claim against the man’s estate seeking Continue Reading »
In Keeton v. State,[1] the supreme court held that attorney’s fees and costs are excluded from awards of prejudgment interest in cases of eminent domain. In 2014, the Alaska Department of Transportation (DOT) sought to condemn a portion Keeton’s land for a highway-widening project. After a superior court-appointed master settled a dispute regarding the value Continue Reading »
