In Kelley v. Municipality of Anchorage, Board of Equalization,[1] the supreme court held that a board of equalization does not abuse its discretion by not considering evidence offered past assigned deadlines and also does not abuse its discretion by not finding a landowner’s sale of a nearby lot in the same subdivision or the landowner’s Continue Reading »
In Kenai Landing, Inc. v. Cook Inlet Natural Gas Storage Alaska, LLC.,[1] the supreme court held that an oil and gas lessor does not have the right to compensation for gas developed in pressuring a gas storage facility. Cook Inlet Natural Gas Storage Alaska (CINGSA) leases the Sterling C Reservoir and must maintain a certain Continue Reading »
In McCavit v. Lacher[1] the supreme court extended the rule of reasonable use for non-consumptive waters to rights of access and rights to use. The Lachers brought an action against upland neighboring landowners McCavits for extending their dock on Wasilla Lake towards their property, claiming it was an unreasonable interference with their riparian rights and Continue Reading »
In Pasley v. Pasley,[1] the supreme court affirmed that a wife’s separate property in the marital home had not transmuted to marital property where she had intended or demonstrated an intent to donate the property to the marital estate. A husband and wife divorced and contested the characterization of the marital home as martial or Continue Reading »
In Rosauer v. Manos, the supreme court held that a retroactively granted municipal permit conferred lawful authority for the removal of trees from a municipal right-of-way when lawful authority was required for their removal.[1] Chris and Jeanne Rosauer owned property across a municipal roadway from the property of Manos and Liddicoat (“Manos”). The Municipality of Continue Reading »
In Schacht v. Kunimune,[1] the Supreme Court held AS 13.33.211 applied to a dispute between a joint account owner and the creditor of his co-owner, and therefore absent clear contrary intent of the owners, that, for the purpose of third party creditors, an account’s fund’s belong to each co-owner in proportion to the net contribution Continue Reading »
In In re Hospitalization of Danielle B.,[1] the supreme court found, upon review of an involuntary commitment petition, that sufficient evidence supported a finding that involuntary hospitalization was the least restrictive treatment option. When Danielle was evicted from a motel, she assaulted a police officer at the scene and then threatened to assault staff when Continue Reading »
In In re Hospitalization of Luciano G.,[1] the supreme court held the evidence in an involuntary commitment order sufficiently supported a finding that the detainee was likely to cause harm to himself or others. After becoming belligerent with an airport ticketing agent, Luciano G. balled his fists and refused to cooperate with an airport security Continue Reading »
In In re Naomi B.,[1] the supreme court held that all appeals of involuntary admission and compulsory taking of medication fall under the public interest exception to mootness. The two consolidated cases before the supreme court concerned the Alaska Adult Protective Services (APS) petitions for an ex parte order that would commit Naomi B. to Continue Reading »
In In re Necessity for the Hospitalization of G.L.,[1] the supreme court held that in involuntary commitment hearings the superior court must consider the condition of the patient at the time of the hearing for commitment, which can include evidence of past behavior or conditions likely to impact the patient’s mental or health or likelihood Continue Reading »
