Year In Review

Shack v. Shack

Posted on November 13th, 2018

In Shack v. Shack, [1] the supreme court held that Alaska’s bystander theory of liability does not permit recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) when the tortfeasor and the injured relative are the same person.  In June 2014, Elizabeth Shack failed to yield the right-of-way at a stop sign causing an accident with Continue Reading »

Alaska Ass’n. of Naturopathic Physicians v. State Department of Commerce

Posted on November 13th, 2018

In Alaska Ass’n. of Naturopathic Physicians v. State Department of Commerce,[1] the supreme court held that new regulations prohibiting naturopathic physicians from using or prescribing all prescription medicines are consistent with the enabling statute. Alaska established a statutory licensing structure for naturopathy[2] in 1986, and conferred regulatory authority to the Department of Commerce in 1992.[3] Continue Reading »

Pease-Madore v. State Department of Corrections

Posted on November 13th, 2018

In Pease-Madore v. Alaska Department of Corrections[1], the supreme court held that a prisoner’s procedural due process rights in a disciplinary hearing are satisfied by the use of incident reports as evidence and audio recordings as documentation of that hearing. Pease-Madore was disciplined for making threats of bodily harm and creating a disturbance; the superior Continue Reading »

League of Conservation Voters v. Trump

Posted on November 13th, 2018

In League of Conservation Voters v. Trump,[1] the district court held that the potential harm to the oceans from an executive order was sufficiently imminent, geographically specific, and particularized to establish standing under Article III. Using power granted by Congress in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (“OCSLA”), President Obama withdrew 128 million acres of Continue Reading »

State v. Bell

Posted on November 5th, 2018

In State v. Bell,[1] the court of appeals held that section 12.55.027(d) of the Alaska Statutes requires a defendant lose all credit toward their sentence for a period of release on bail subject to electronic monitoring if it ends because the defendant commits a new crime. In 2015, section 12.55.027(d) of the Alaska Statutes was Continue Reading »

Osborne v. State

Posted on November 5th, 2018

In Osborne v. State,[1] the court of appeals held that, to obtain a search warrant covering anyone arriving at a premises during the execution of the warrant, the police must affirmatively establish good reason to believe that any and all persons who arrive will likely be participants in the criminal activity investigated. In Osborne, the police Continue Reading »

Odom v. State Division of Corporations

Posted on November 5th, 2018

In Odom v. State Division of Corporations,[1] the supreme court held that a Medical Board’s decision to impose sanctions must be supported by sufficiently substantial evidence that the doctor’s actions demonstrated professional incompetence. Odom was accused of providing substandard care to his patient by administering excessive thyroid hormone treatment and by proscribing phentermine to a Continue Reading »

Medina v. State

Posted on November 5th, 2018

In Medina v. State,[1] the court of appeals held that probationers are able to seek credit for time spent in earlier court-ordered treatment programs for the purposes of subsequent probation revocation proceedings. After Medina violated his probation, the superior court ordered him to complete a residential treatment program. Although Medina successfully completed the program, he Continue Reading »

Hooks v. Alaska United States Federal Credit Union

Posted on November 5th, 2018

In Hooks v. Alaska United States Federal Credit Union[1], the Supreme Court of Alaska affirmed the superior court’s ruling that discredited both the “vapor money” and “unlawful money” theories as attempts to nullify a mortgage agreement. Hooks obtained a loan from Homestate Mortgage Company LLC (Homestate) to refinance an existing loan, which was secured by Continue Reading »

Toni 1 Trust, by Tangwall v. Wacker

Posted on November 5th, 2018

In Toni 1 Trust, by Tangwall v. Wacker,[1] the supreme court held that section 34.40.110(k) of the Alaska Statutes cannot deprive either federal or other states’ courts of jurisdiction over fraudulent transfer actions. In 2007, a Montana court issued multiple default judgments against Tangwall and his family, leading them to transfer property to a trust Continue Reading »

Year In Review

Shack v. Shack

Posted on November 13th, 2018

In Shack v. Shack, [1] the supreme court held that Alaska’s bystander theory of liability does not permit recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) when the tortfeasor and the injured relative are the same person.  In June 2014, Elizabeth Shack failed to yield the right-of-way at a stop sign causing an accident with Continue Reading »

Alaska Ass’n. of Naturopathic Physicians v. State Department of Commerce

Posted on November 13th, 2018

In Alaska Ass’n. of Naturopathic Physicians v. State Department of Commerce,[1] the supreme court held that new regulations prohibiting naturopathic physicians from using or prescribing all prescription medicines are consistent with the enabling statute. Alaska established a statutory licensing structure for naturopathy[2] in 1986, and conferred regulatory authority to the Department of Commerce in 1992.[3] Continue Reading »

Pease-Madore v. State Department of Corrections

Posted on November 13th, 2018

In Pease-Madore v. Alaska Department of Corrections[1], the supreme court held that a prisoner’s procedural due process rights in a disciplinary hearing are satisfied by the use of incident reports as evidence and audio recordings as documentation of that hearing. Pease-Madore was disciplined for making threats of bodily harm and creating a disturbance; the superior Continue Reading »

League of Conservation Voters v. Trump

Posted on November 13th, 2018

In League of Conservation Voters v. Trump,[1] the district court held that the potential harm to the oceans from an executive order was sufficiently imminent, geographically specific, and particularized to establish standing under Article III. Using power granted by Congress in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (“OCSLA”), President Obama withdrew 128 million acres of Continue Reading »

State v. Bell

Posted on November 5th, 2018

In State v. Bell,[1] the court of appeals held that section 12.55.027(d) of the Alaska Statutes requires a defendant lose all credit toward their sentence for a period of release on bail subject to electronic monitoring if it ends because the defendant commits a new crime. In 2015, section 12.55.027(d) of the Alaska Statutes was Continue Reading »

Osborne v. State

Posted on November 5th, 2018

In Osborne v. State,[1] the court of appeals held that, to obtain a search warrant covering anyone arriving at a premises during the execution of the warrant, the police must affirmatively establish good reason to believe that any and all persons who arrive will likely be participants in the criminal activity investigated. In Osborne, the police Continue Reading »

Odom v. State Division of Corporations

Posted on November 5th, 2018

In Odom v. State Division of Corporations,[1] the supreme court held that a Medical Board’s decision to impose sanctions must be supported by sufficiently substantial evidence that the doctor’s actions demonstrated professional incompetence. Odom was accused of providing substandard care to his patient by administering excessive thyroid hormone treatment and by proscribing phentermine to a Continue Reading »

Medina v. State

Posted on November 5th, 2018

In Medina v. State,[1] the court of appeals held that probationers are able to seek credit for time spent in earlier court-ordered treatment programs for the purposes of subsequent probation revocation proceedings. After Medina violated his probation, the superior court ordered him to complete a residential treatment program. Although Medina successfully completed the program, he Continue Reading »

Hooks v. Alaska United States Federal Credit Union

Posted on November 5th, 2018

In Hooks v. Alaska United States Federal Credit Union[1], the Supreme Court of Alaska affirmed the superior court’s ruling that discredited both the “vapor money” and “unlawful money” theories as attempts to nullify a mortgage agreement. Hooks obtained a loan from Homestate Mortgage Company LLC (Homestate) to refinance an existing loan, which was secured by Continue Reading »

Toni 1 Trust, by Tangwall v. Wacker

Posted on November 5th, 2018

In Toni 1 Trust, by Tangwall v. Wacker,[1] the supreme court held that section 34.40.110(k) of the Alaska Statutes cannot deprive either federal or other states’ courts of jurisdiction over fraudulent transfer actions. In 2007, a Montana court issued multiple default judgments against Tangwall and his family, leading them to transfer property to a trust Continue Reading »