Year In Review

Lane v. City of Juneau

Posted on November 26th, 2018

In Lane v. City of Juneau,[1] the Supreme Court of Alaska held that a municipality and its employees do not share the same type of immunity for its decisions and actions.  The City of Juneau (“the City”) operated a campground that was normally closed for the winter. To accommodate the local homeless population, the City Continue Reading »

Walker v. State, Department of Corrections

Posted on November 26th, 2018

In Walker v. State Department of Corrections,[1] the supreme court held (1) a prisoner has a due process right to call witnesses in a disciplinary hearing and (2) a prisoner does not waive this right by failing to raise it during the administrative appeals process. In October 2013, Walker, an inmate, began work developing an Continue Reading »

Kang v. Mullins

Posted on November 26th, 2018

In Kang v. Mullins[1] the supreme court reversed the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Appeals Commission, deciding that a woman was not her neighbor’s employer when she hired him to complete repairs on a home she rented to use as a residence and place of business. Yong Kang rented a home in North Pole from her son. Continue Reading »

In re Albertsen

Posted on November 26th, 2018

In In re Albertsen,[1] the supreme court held that, as a result of an attorney’s six ethical violations including failure to act with due diligence, failure to maintain adequate communication with a client, and failure to adequately communicate with the disciplinary committee, a two-year-and-one-day suspension was appropriate. Albertsen, an attorney in Alaska, represented a client Continue Reading »

Burke v. Raven Electric, Inc.

Posted on November 26th, 2018

In Burke v. Raven Electric, Inc.[1] the court held that the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act) (1) does not violate the due process or equal protection clauses and (2) bars relief under the Defective Machinery Act. The mother of an employee killed at work sought workers’ compensation death benefits, arguing Continue Reading »

Osborne v. State

Posted on November 26th, 2018

In Wiegers v. Richards-Wiegers,[1] the supreme court reviewed the lower court’s division of a marital estate and held that a court can rely on an expert witness’s valuation method when recognized as valid and adequately supported by the expert’s testimony. Additionally, the court held that retirement health benefits vested before marriage can be marital assets if Continue Reading »

Hahn v. Geico Choice Ins. Co.

Posted on November 26th, 2018

In Hahn v. Geico Choice Ins. Co.,[1] the supreme court held that the “reasonable” interpretation of an insurance policy involves an examination of  “(1) the language of the disputed provisions in the policy, (2) other provisions in the policy, (3) extrinsic evidence, and (4) case law interpreting similar provisions.” Hahn was stopped at a red Continue Reading »

Jordan v. State

Posted on November 26th, 2018

In Jordan v. State,[1] the Supreme Court of Alaska held (1) that failure to instruct the jury on an essential element of a crime is a structural error and so is not susceptible to harmless error review, and (2) that a mental state as toward the weight of marijuana in a defendant’s possession is an Continue Reading »

Dunmore v. Dunmore

Posted on November 26th, 2018

In Dunmore v. Dunmore[1], the Supreme Court of Alaska held that while a court cannot lawfully divide social security benefits belonging to either spouse, courts have discretion to consider them as evidence of the parties’ respective financial positions when equitably dividing marital property. Gloria and Richard Dunmore were married in 1975, separated in July 2007, Continue Reading »

Pederson v. Arctic Slope Reg’l Corp.

Posted on November 13th, 2018

In Pederson v. Arctic Slope Reg’l Corp.,[1] the supreme court held that Alaska law permits corporations to unilaterally demand a reasonable confidentiality agreement when shareholders request copies of the shareholder list. Pederson requested a shareholder list from Arctic Slop Reg’l Corp. (ASRC). ASRC agreed under the condition that Pederson sign a confidentiality agreement, but after Continue Reading »

Year In Review

Lane v. City of Juneau

Posted on November 26th, 2018

In Lane v. City of Juneau,[1] the Supreme Court of Alaska held that a municipality and its employees do not share the same type of immunity for its decisions and actions.  The City of Juneau (“the City”) operated a campground that was normally closed for the winter. To accommodate the local homeless population, the City Continue Reading »

Walker v. State, Department of Corrections

Posted on November 26th, 2018

In Walker v. State Department of Corrections,[1] the supreme court held (1) a prisoner has a due process right to call witnesses in a disciplinary hearing and (2) a prisoner does not waive this right by failing to raise it during the administrative appeals process. In October 2013, Walker, an inmate, began work developing an Continue Reading »

Kang v. Mullins

Posted on November 26th, 2018

In Kang v. Mullins[1] the supreme court reversed the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Appeals Commission, deciding that a woman was not her neighbor’s employer when she hired him to complete repairs on a home she rented to use as a residence and place of business. Yong Kang rented a home in North Pole from her son. Continue Reading »

In re Albertsen

Posted on November 26th, 2018

In In re Albertsen,[1] the supreme court held that, as a result of an attorney’s six ethical violations including failure to act with due diligence, failure to maintain adequate communication with a client, and failure to adequately communicate with the disciplinary committee, a two-year-and-one-day suspension was appropriate. Albertsen, an attorney in Alaska, represented a client Continue Reading »

Burke v. Raven Electric, Inc.

Posted on November 26th, 2018

In Burke v. Raven Electric, Inc.[1] the court held that the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act) (1) does not violate the due process or equal protection clauses and (2) bars relief under the Defective Machinery Act. The mother of an employee killed at work sought workers’ compensation death benefits, arguing Continue Reading »

Osborne v. State

Posted on November 26th, 2018

In Wiegers v. Richards-Wiegers,[1] the supreme court reviewed the lower court’s division of a marital estate and held that a court can rely on an expert witness’s valuation method when recognized as valid and adequately supported by the expert’s testimony. Additionally, the court held that retirement health benefits vested before marriage can be marital assets if Continue Reading »

Hahn v. Geico Choice Ins. Co.

Posted on November 26th, 2018

In Hahn v. Geico Choice Ins. Co.,[1] the supreme court held that the “reasonable” interpretation of an insurance policy involves an examination of  “(1) the language of the disputed provisions in the policy, (2) other provisions in the policy, (3) extrinsic evidence, and (4) case law interpreting similar provisions.” Hahn was stopped at a red Continue Reading »

Jordan v. State

Posted on November 26th, 2018

In Jordan v. State,[1] the Supreme Court of Alaska held (1) that failure to instruct the jury on an essential element of a crime is a structural error and so is not susceptible to harmless error review, and (2) that a mental state as toward the weight of marijuana in a defendant’s possession is an Continue Reading »

Dunmore v. Dunmore

Posted on November 26th, 2018

In Dunmore v. Dunmore[1], the Supreme Court of Alaska held that while a court cannot lawfully divide social security benefits belonging to either spouse, courts have discretion to consider them as evidence of the parties’ respective financial positions when equitably dividing marital property. Gloria and Richard Dunmore were married in 1975, separated in July 2007, Continue Reading »

Pederson v. Arctic Slope Reg’l Corp.

Posted on November 13th, 2018

In Pederson v. Arctic Slope Reg’l Corp.,[1] the supreme court held that Alaska law permits corporations to unilaterally demand a reasonable confidentiality agreement when shareholders request copies of the shareholder list. Pederson requested a shareholder list from Arctic Slop Reg’l Corp. (ASRC). ASRC agreed under the condition that Pederson sign a confidentiality agreement, but after Continue Reading »