Year In Review

Jackson v. Sey

Posted on June 28th, 2014

[CIVIL PROCEDURE] In Jackson v. Sey,[1] the supreme court held that a post-judgment motion for relief from judgment is not subject to dismissal for lack of prosecution under Rule 41(e).[2] In 2008, the lower court granted a divorce to Sey and her husband Jackson after Jackson failed to appear at a hearing telephonically from jail.[3] Continue Reading »

Hill v. Giani

Posted on June 28th, 2014

[CIVIL PROCEDURE] In Hill v. Giani,[1] the supreme court held that summary judgment is inappropriate where the movant is protected by qualified official immunity subject to a good faith requirement and the nonmovant presents some admissible evidence that the official acted in bad faith.[2] Giani, an independent care coordinator for the State Department of Health Continue Reading »

Dixon v. Blackwell

Posted on June 28th, 2014

[CIVIL PROCEDURE] In Dixon v. Blackwell,[1] the supreme court held that an ambiguous statement in a closing argument does not constitute a judicial admission.[2] After failing to reach an agreement in arbitration regarding payment of her medical expenses, Dixon filed a complaint against Blackwell.[3] At trial, Blackwell’s attorney estimated that Dixon’s related medical expenses could Continue Reading »

Chloe O. v. State, Department of Health & Social Services

Posted on June 28th, 2014

[CIVIL PROCEDURE] In Chloe O. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Social Services,[1] the supreme court held that when reviewing a lower court’s holding that was made during a new hearing, review is based only on the evidence before the court during the new hearing.[2] The Office of Children Service (“OCS”) filed suit to terminate Continue Reading »

Bearden v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.

Posted on June 28th, 2014

[CIVIL PROCEDURE] In Bearden v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.,[1] the supreme court held that pleading no contest to a disorderly conduct charge collaterally estops re-litigating the essential elements of that crime in a civil declaratory judgment action regarding insurance coverage.[2] After a physical altercation with an acquaintance, Bearden pled no contest to disorderly Continue Reading »

American Marine Corp. v. Sholin

Posted on June 28th, 2014

[CIVIL PROCEDURE] In American Marine Corp. v. Sholin,[1] the supreme court held that the State’s savings statute does not require timely notice.[2] In 2005, Sholin was provided medical services by American Marine Corporation (the “Corporation”).[3] The Corporation asserted that Sholin’s insurer had given them oral authorization to provide the services.[4] Nevertheless, Sholin’s insurer subsequently denied Continue Reading »

Alaskan Adventure Tours v. City and Borough of Yakutat

Posted on June 28th, 2014

[CIVIL PROCEDURE] In Alaskan Adventure Tours v. City and Borough of Yakutat,[1] the supreme court held that when ruling on a motion for relief from judgment based on fraud, the lower court may require a showing that the fraud could not have been discovered by due diligence before or during trial.[2] In 2010, Yakutat filed Continue Reading »

Tesoro Corp. v. State, Department of Revenue

Posted on June 28th, 2014

[BUSINESS LAW] In Tesoro Corp. v. State, Dep’t of Revenue,[1] the supreme court held that parent corporations maintaining significant oversight of its subsidiaries are subject to taxation under the unitary business apportionment method.[2] Between 1969 and 1994, Tesoro’s operations in Alaska were treated as a unitary business and taxed as such.[3] However in 1995, its Continue Reading »

McCarter v. McCarter

Posted on June 28th, 2014

[BUSINESS LAW] In McCarter v. McCarter,[1] the supreme court held that, without filing a motion for relief from judgment, the court will not modify an agreement that has previously been incorporated into a final dissolution decree.[2] Deborah McCarter filed a motion in the lower court for enforcement of a property agreement that was incorporated into Continue Reading »

Brown v. Knowles

Posted on June 28th, 2014

[BUSINESS LAW] In Brown v. Knowles,[1] the supreme court held that an employee’s veil-piercing claim is not barred during the corporation’s bankruptcy proceedings.[2] Brown, the sole shareholder of International Steel, entered into an agreement with Knowles, an employee, for a bonus compensation package but eventually stopped paying.[3] Knowles subsequently filed suit against International Steel and Continue Reading »

Year In Review

Jackson v. Sey

Posted on June 28th, 2014

[CIVIL PROCEDURE] In Jackson v. Sey,[1] the supreme court held that a post-judgment motion for relief from judgment is not subject to dismissal for lack of prosecution under Rule 41(e).[2] In 2008, the lower court granted a divorce to Sey and her husband Jackson after Jackson failed to appear at a hearing telephonically from jail.[3] Continue Reading »

Hill v. Giani

Posted on June 28th, 2014

[CIVIL PROCEDURE] In Hill v. Giani,[1] the supreme court held that summary judgment is inappropriate where the movant is protected by qualified official immunity subject to a good faith requirement and the nonmovant presents some admissible evidence that the official acted in bad faith.[2] Giani, an independent care coordinator for the State Department of Health Continue Reading »

Dixon v. Blackwell

Posted on June 28th, 2014

[CIVIL PROCEDURE] In Dixon v. Blackwell,[1] the supreme court held that an ambiguous statement in a closing argument does not constitute a judicial admission.[2] After failing to reach an agreement in arbitration regarding payment of her medical expenses, Dixon filed a complaint against Blackwell.[3] At trial, Blackwell’s attorney estimated that Dixon’s related medical expenses could Continue Reading »

Chloe O. v. State, Department of Health & Social Services

Posted on June 28th, 2014

[CIVIL PROCEDURE] In Chloe O. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Social Services,[1] the supreme court held that when reviewing a lower court’s holding that was made during a new hearing, review is based only on the evidence before the court during the new hearing.[2] The Office of Children Service (“OCS”) filed suit to terminate Continue Reading »

Bearden v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.

Posted on June 28th, 2014

[CIVIL PROCEDURE] In Bearden v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.,[1] the supreme court held that pleading no contest to a disorderly conduct charge collaterally estops re-litigating the essential elements of that crime in a civil declaratory judgment action regarding insurance coverage.[2] After a physical altercation with an acquaintance, Bearden pled no contest to disorderly Continue Reading »

American Marine Corp. v. Sholin

Posted on June 28th, 2014

[CIVIL PROCEDURE] In American Marine Corp. v. Sholin,[1] the supreme court held that the State’s savings statute does not require timely notice.[2] In 2005, Sholin was provided medical services by American Marine Corporation (the “Corporation”).[3] The Corporation asserted that Sholin’s insurer had given them oral authorization to provide the services.[4] Nevertheless, Sholin’s insurer subsequently denied Continue Reading »

Alaskan Adventure Tours v. City and Borough of Yakutat

Posted on June 28th, 2014

[CIVIL PROCEDURE] In Alaskan Adventure Tours v. City and Borough of Yakutat,[1] the supreme court held that when ruling on a motion for relief from judgment based on fraud, the lower court may require a showing that the fraud could not have been discovered by due diligence before or during trial.[2] In 2010, Yakutat filed Continue Reading »

Tesoro Corp. v. State, Department of Revenue

Posted on June 28th, 2014

[BUSINESS LAW] In Tesoro Corp. v. State, Dep’t of Revenue,[1] the supreme court held that parent corporations maintaining significant oversight of its subsidiaries are subject to taxation under the unitary business apportionment method.[2] Between 1969 and 1994, Tesoro’s operations in Alaska were treated as a unitary business and taxed as such.[3] However in 1995, its Continue Reading »

McCarter v. McCarter

Posted on June 28th, 2014

[BUSINESS LAW] In McCarter v. McCarter,[1] the supreme court held that, without filing a motion for relief from judgment, the court will not modify an agreement that has previously been incorporated into a final dissolution decree.[2] Deborah McCarter filed a motion in the lower court for enforcement of a property agreement that was incorporated into Continue Reading »

Brown v. Knowles

Posted on June 28th, 2014

[BUSINESS LAW] In Brown v. Knowles,[1] the supreme court held that an employee’s veil-piercing claim is not barred during the corporation’s bankruptcy proceedings.[2] Brown, the sole shareholder of International Steel, entered into an agreement with Knowles, an employee, for a bonus compensation package but eventually stopped paying.[3] Knowles subsequently filed suit against International Steel and Continue Reading »