Year In Review

Corkery v. Municipality of Anchorage

Posted on February 27th, 2019

In Corkery v. Municipality of Anchorage,[1] the supreme court held that section 21.15.010 of the Anchorage Municipality Code (AMC) requires property owners to substantially satisfy each one of its seven standards to obtain a zoning variance.  In 1965, the Corkerys’ lot was zoned so that at maximum 30% of the surface could be covered by Continue Reading »

Cox v. Estate of Cooper

Posted on February 27th, 2019

In Cox v. Estate of Cooper,[1] the supreme court held that Alaska’s usury statute[2] does not limit the maximum interest rate parties may specify on loans with a principal amount greater than $25,000.[3]  The Coopers loaned Cox $325,000 at an interest rate of 20% to be paid back in six months.  Seven years later, after Continue Reading »

Matter of Darren M.

Posted on February 27th, 2019

In the Matter of Darren M.[1] the supreme court held that, under section 47.40.655 of the Alaska Statutes, to involuntarily commit someone who is gravely disabled by mental illness but not a danger to others, the state must show that commitment provides a reasonable possibility of improvement by clear and convincing evidence.  Darren M. was Continue Reading »

Dara S. v. State

Posted on February 27th, 2019

In Dara S. v. State,[1] the supreme court held that a court may set aside a termination of parental rights order where there is clear and convincing evidence both that the parent is sufficiently rehabilitated and that the parent is capable of providing the care and guidance that wills serve the moral, emotional, mental and Continue Reading »

Huber v. State, Department of Corrections

Posted on February 27th, 2019

In Huber v. State, Department of Corrections,[1] the supreme court held that, with the possible exception of very simple cases, a hearing officer in a prison disciplinary proceeding must include the basis for their decision in writing or through a recording in order to satisfy due process.  Huber was an inmate at the Goose Creek Continue Reading »

Alaska State Commission for Human Rights v. Anderson

Posted on February 27th, 2019

In Alaska State Commission for Human Rights v. Anderson,[1] the supreme court held that a statute mandating confidentiality in investigations permits an agency to exclude third-parties from investigative interviews.  An employee of Alaska’s Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) filed a discrimination complaint with the Commission for Human Rights, which enforces Alaska’s anti-discrimination laws.  Continue Reading »

Tomal v. Anderson

Posted on February 27th, 2019

In Tomal v. Anderson,[1] the supreme court held that in distributing property acquired during a domestic partnership courts must (1) determine when the partnership began and ended; (2) classify the property of that period as partnership or separate property (first according to statute or contract, and then by the partners’ intent); (3) determine partnership property’s Continue Reading »

Simmons v. State, Department of Corrections

Posted on February 27th, 2019

In Simmons v. State, Department of Corrections,[1] the Supreme Court of Alaska held that though AS 11.56.760 has a retroactive requirement that persons convicted of certain crimes provide a DNA sample, it is not an ex post facto law under the Constitution of Alaska.  David Simmons was found guilty of four felonies in September of Continue Reading »

Mallot v. Stand for Salmon

Posted on February 6th, 2019

In Mallott v. Stand for Salmon,[1] the Alaska Supreme Court held that a ballot initiative effects an unconstitutional appropriation if it transfers state assets into private hand or if it infringes on the legislature’s ability to allocate resources among competing use.  In July 2017, Stand for Salmon submitted ballot initiative 17FSH2 to establish a permitting scheme Continue Reading »

Nageak v. Mallott

Posted on February 6th, 2019

In Nageak v. Mallott,[1] the Supreme Court held that (1) election challengers must bring an election contest complaint, rather than a recount appeal, if they are alleging only malconduct, fraud, or corruption in the conduct of an election, and (2) the malconduct must be sufficient to change the result of the election before a new Continue Reading »

Year In Review

Corkery v. Municipality of Anchorage

Posted on February 27th, 2019

In Corkery v. Municipality of Anchorage,[1] the supreme court held that section 21.15.010 of the Anchorage Municipality Code (AMC) requires property owners to substantially satisfy each one of its seven standards to obtain a zoning variance.  In 1965, the Corkerys’ lot was zoned so that at maximum 30% of the surface could be covered by Continue Reading »

Cox v. Estate of Cooper

Posted on February 27th, 2019

In Cox v. Estate of Cooper,[1] the supreme court held that Alaska’s usury statute[2] does not limit the maximum interest rate parties may specify on loans with a principal amount greater than $25,000.[3]  The Coopers loaned Cox $325,000 at an interest rate of 20% to be paid back in six months.  Seven years later, after Continue Reading »

Matter of Darren M.

Posted on February 27th, 2019

In the Matter of Darren M.[1] the supreme court held that, under section 47.40.655 of the Alaska Statutes, to involuntarily commit someone who is gravely disabled by mental illness but not a danger to others, the state must show that commitment provides a reasonable possibility of improvement by clear and convincing evidence.  Darren M. was Continue Reading »

Dara S. v. State

Posted on February 27th, 2019

In Dara S. v. State,[1] the supreme court held that a court may set aside a termination of parental rights order where there is clear and convincing evidence both that the parent is sufficiently rehabilitated and that the parent is capable of providing the care and guidance that wills serve the moral, emotional, mental and Continue Reading »

Huber v. State, Department of Corrections

Posted on February 27th, 2019

In Huber v. State, Department of Corrections,[1] the supreme court held that, with the possible exception of very simple cases, a hearing officer in a prison disciplinary proceeding must include the basis for their decision in writing or through a recording in order to satisfy due process.  Huber was an inmate at the Goose Creek Continue Reading »

Alaska State Commission for Human Rights v. Anderson

Posted on February 27th, 2019

In Alaska State Commission for Human Rights v. Anderson,[1] the supreme court held that a statute mandating confidentiality in investigations permits an agency to exclude third-parties from investigative interviews.  An employee of Alaska’s Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) filed a discrimination complaint with the Commission for Human Rights, which enforces Alaska’s anti-discrimination laws.  Continue Reading »

Tomal v. Anderson

Posted on February 27th, 2019

In Tomal v. Anderson,[1] the supreme court held that in distributing property acquired during a domestic partnership courts must (1) determine when the partnership began and ended; (2) classify the property of that period as partnership or separate property (first according to statute or contract, and then by the partners’ intent); (3) determine partnership property’s Continue Reading »

Simmons v. State, Department of Corrections

Posted on February 27th, 2019

In Simmons v. State, Department of Corrections,[1] the Supreme Court of Alaska held that though AS 11.56.760 has a retroactive requirement that persons convicted of certain crimes provide a DNA sample, it is not an ex post facto law under the Constitution of Alaska.  David Simmons was found guilty of four felonies in September of Continue Reading »

Mallot v. Stand for Salmon

Posted on February 6th, 2019

In Mallott v. Stand for Salmon,[1] the Alaska Supreme Court held that a ballot initiative effects an unconstitutional appropriation if it transfers state assets into private hand or if it infringes on the legislature’s ability to allocate resources among competing use.  In July 2017, Stand for Salmon submitted ballot initiative 17FSH2 to establish a permitting scheme Continue Reading »

Nageak v. Mallott

Posted on February 6th, 2019

In Nageak v. Mallott,[1] the Supreme Court held that (1) election challengers must bring an election contest complaint, rather than a recount appeal, if they are alleging only malconduct, fraud, or corruption in the conduct of an election, and (2) the malconduct must be sufficient to change the result of the election before a new Continue Reading »