In Meyer v. Stand for Salmon,[1] the supreme court held that in a claim with multiple constitutional issues, the constitutional claimant was entitled to recover attorneys’ fees for the issues on which it prevailed. The preceding action addressed four constitutional issues that arose after the Lieutenant Governor did not certify Stand for Salmon’s ballot initiative. Continue Reading »
In Allstate Insurance Co. v. Kenick,[1] the Supreme Court held that where a federal declaratory judgment determined the absence of a necessary element of a different state court claim, those bringing the state claim were precluded from relitigating the issue. After an automobile accident in which Angelina Trailov was injured as a passenger, she and Continue Reading »
In Anderson v. State, Department of Administration,[1] the supreme court upheld the superior court’s finding that a suit was barred by the doctrine of laches as it was brought after an unreasonable delay that would cause the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) undue prejudice. In 1992, Anderson replaced his California driver’s license, which contained a Continue Reading »
In Department of Health and Human Services v. v. Planned Parenthood,[1] the supreme court held that reasonable travel expenses were recoverable as attorney’s fees. As the prevailing party, Planned Parenthood was entitled to have the Department of Health and Human Services pay for the cost to litigate the case. The supreme court held that the Continue Reading »
In DeRemer v. State,[1] the supreme court held that dismissal of a claim absent acknowledgement of that claim was improper. DeRemer was charged with an infraction while in the custody of the Alaska Department of Correction (DOC), leading to a hearing at which DeRemer challenged the credibility of the disciplinary process and was ultimately punished. Continue Reading »
In Diamond v. Platinum Jaxx, Inc.,[1] the supreme court held that because a plaintiff failed to plead a piercing the veil theory and the individual owners were never joined to the suit or otherwise put on notice, that the plaintiff was correctly precluded from submitting evidence related to piercing the corporate veil. After being assaulted Continue Reading »
In Leahy v. Conant,[1] the supreme court held that public officials have qualified immunity from civil liability when there is no showing that they act unreasonably in following a government directive. An Alaska Department of Corrections (DOC) directive prohibited mail from being sent between prisoners. Leahy, a Muslim inmate, filed suit against two correctional facility Continue Reading »
In In re Hospitalization of Connor J.,[1] the supreme court held that the superior court did not commit “plain error” by relying on a committee’s attorney’s assertion that the committee was waiving his right to appear at a commitment hearing. The committee, Connor, was not present at a hearing before a standing master to determine Continue Reading »
In Matter of Linda M.,[1] the supreme court held that civil commitment proceedings to treat mental illness may be held sequentially or concurrently with criminal commitment proceedings to treat incompetency to stand trial.[2] Linda M. was found incompetent to stand trial for criminal charges and committed to Alaska Psychiatric Institute (API) for restoration of competency, Continue Reading »
In Mitchell v. Mitchell,[1] the supreme court held that a wife’s challenge to a long-term protective order that had been later dissolved as unlawfully granted was dismissed as moot and neither the public interest nor the collateral consequences exceptions to the mootness doctrine applied. During the course of a short term domestic violence protective order Continue Reading »
