Ahlstrom v. Cummings, 388 P.2d 261 (Alaska 1964). · Go Syfert
Search
Ahlstrom v. Cummings, 388 P.2d 261 (Alaska 1964). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
86 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State of Alaska, DFCS, Office of Children's Services v. Brett Lane (alaska, 2024-02-09)
Treatment trajectory · 1964 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1964 1995 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 45 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State of Alaska, DFCS, Office of Children's Services v. Brett Lane
Alaska · 2024 · confidence medium
We recognize that AS 23.30.055 provides that “[t]he liability of an employer prescribed in AS 23.30.045 is exclusive and in place of all other liability of the employer . . . on account of the injury or death.” And we acknowledge that the workers’ compensation system is 18 Id. at 449 (quoting Ahlstrom v. Cummings, 388 P.2d 261, 262 (Alaska 1964)). 19 “We review legal questions de novo . . . .” Lee v. Konrad, 337 P.3d 510, 517 (Alaska 2014) (quoting Est. of Smith v. Spinelli, 216 P.3d 524, 528 (Alaska 2009)). -10- 7685 sometimes called the “grand bargain,” in which workers give up…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Bierria v. Dickinson Manufacturing Co.
Alaska · 2001 · confidence medium
Id. (quoting Ahlstrom v. Cummings, 388 P.2d 261, 262 (Alaska 1964)). 7 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Noey v. Bledsoe
Alaska · 1999 · confidence medium
Dowling Supply & Equip., Inc. v. City of Anchorage, 490 P.2d 907, 909 (Alaska 1971) (quoting Ahlstrom v. Cummings, 388 P.2d 261, 262 (Alaska 1964)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Zerbetz v. Municipality of Anchorage
Alaska · 1993 · confidence medium
For a new trial to be appropriate, the evidence supporting the verdict must be “completely lacking or [ ] so slight and unconvincing as to make the verdict plainly unreasonable and unjust.” Ahlstrom v. Cummings, 388 P.2d 261, 262 (Alaska 1964); see also Municipality of Anchorage v. Baugh Construction, 722 P.2d 919, 927 (Alaska 1986) (a jury’s findings, if supported by evidence in the record, will be upheld where “there is room for diversity of opinion among reasonable people.”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bohna v. HUGHES, THORSNESS, GANTZ (2×)
Alaska · 1992 · confidence medium
However, upon reviewing the entire record, we cannot say that the "evidence to support the verdict was completely lacking or was so slight and unconvincing as to make the verdict plainly unreasonable and unjust." Sloan v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 541 P.2d 717, 724 (Alaska 1975) (quoting Ahlstrom v. Cummings, 388 P.2d 261, 262 (Alaska 1964)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kulawik v. ERA Jet Alaska (2×)
Alaska · 1991 · confidence medium
Ahlstrom v. Cummings, 388 P.2d 261, 262 (Alaska 1964).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ben Lomond, Inc. v. Allen
Alaska · 1988 · confidence medium
In reviewing the trial court’s denial of a motion for new trial, “we must examine the record and determine whether ‘the evidence to support the verdict was completely lacking or was so slight and unconvincing as to make the verdict plainly unreasonable and unjust.’ ” Sloan v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 541 P.2d 717, 724 (Alaska 1975) (quoting Ahlstrom v. Cummings, 388 P.2d 261, 262 (Alaska 1964)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Alyeska Pipeline Service Co., Inc. v. Beadles
Alaska · 1987 · confidence medium
Ahlstrom v. Cummings, 388 P.2d 261, 262 (Alaska 1964).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dahle v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2×)
Alaska · 1986 · confidence medium
In reviewing the superior court's denial of Dahle's motion for a new trial, we must determine "whether `the evidence to support the verdict was completely lacking or was so slight and unconvincing as to make the verdict plainly unreasonable and unjust.'" Sloan v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 541 P.2d 717, 724 (Alaska 1975), vacated on other grounds, 552 P.2d 157 (Alaska 1976) (quoting Ahlstrom v. Cummings, 388 P.2d 261, 262 (Alaska 1964)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hayes v. Xerox Corp.
Alaska · 1986 · confidence medium
Bailey v. Lenord, 625 P.2d 849, 856 (Alaska 1981), quoting Ahlstrom v. Cummings, 388 P.2d 261, 262 (Alaska 1964).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Harned v. Dura Corporation (2×)
Alaska · 1983 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Heacock v. Town, 419 P.2d 622, 623 (Alaska 1966); Ahlstrom v. Cummings, 388 P.2d 261, 262 (Alaska 1964); Thomson v. Wheeler Construction Co., 385 P.2d 111, 115 (Alaska 1963).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Clark v. City of Seward (2×)
Alaska · 1983 · confidence medium
Ahlstrom v. Cummings, 388 P.2d 261, 262 (Alaska 1964).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sebring v. Colver (2×)
Alaska · 1982 · confidence medium
A new trial may be granted to all or any of the parties and on all or part of the issues in an action in which there has been a trial by jury or in an action tried without a jury, if required in the interest of justice. [3] See e.g., Bailey v. Lenord, 625 P.2d 849, 856 (Alaska 1981); City of Palmer v. Anderson, 603 P.2d 495, 501 (Alaska 1979); City of Whittier v. Whittier Fuel & Marine Corp., 577 P.2d 216, 222 (Alaska 1978); Sloan v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 541 P.2d 717, 723 (Alaska 1973); Ahlstrom v. Cummings, 388 P.2d 261, 262 (Alaska 1964). [4] Ahlstrom v. Cummings, 388 P.2d at 262 . [5] Do…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mullen v. Christiansen (2×)
Alaska · 1982 · confidence medium
Sloan v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 541 P.2d 717, 724 (Alaska 1975); Ahlstrom v. Cummings, 388 P.2d 261, 262 (Alaska 1964).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bailey v. Lenord (2×)
Alaska · 1981 · confidence medium
“The matter of granting or refusing a new trial rests in the sound discretion of the trial judge.” Ahlstrom v. Cummings, 388 P.2d 261, 262 (Alaska 1964).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) City of Palmer v. Anderson
Alaska · 1979 · confidence medium
City of Whittier v. Whittier Fuel & Marine Corp., 577 P.2d 216, 222 (Alaska 1978); Sloan v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 541 P.2d 717, 723 (Alaska 1975); Dowling Supply & Equip., Inc. v. City of Anchorage, 490 P.2d 907, 909 (Alaska 1971); Ahlstrom v. Cummings, 388 P.2d 261, 262 (Alaska 1964).
cited Cited as authority (rule) City of Whittier v. Whittier Fuel & Marine Corp.
Alaska · 1978 · confidence medium
Ahlstrom v. Cummings, 388 P.2d 261, 262 (Alaska 1964). 18 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Reese v. Geiermann
Alaska · 1978 · confidence medium
Ahlstrom v. Cummings, 388 P.2d 261, 262 (Alaska 1964).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Amidon v. State (2×)
Alaska · 1977 · confidence medium
Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure: Criminal § 553, at 486 (1969). [44] Compare Sloan v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 541 P.2d 717, 724 (Alaska 1975), wherein it was stated: [I]n reviewing a trial court's exercise of discretion upon a motion for new trial, we must examine the record and determine whether `the evidence to support the verdict was completely lacking or was so slight and unconvincing as to make the verdict plainly unreasonable and unjust.' Ahlstrom v. Cummings, [ 388 P.2d 261, 262 (Alaska 1964)].
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Irving v. Bullock
Alaska · 1976 · confidence medium
Sloan v. Atlantic Richfield Company, 541 P.2d 717 (Alaska 1975) ; Holiday Inns of America, Inc. v. Peck, 520 P.2d 87, 90-91 (Alaska 1974) ; Fruit v. Schreiner, 502 P.2d 133, 144 (Alaska 1972) ; Ahlstrom v. Cummings, 388 P.2d 261, 262 (Alaska 1964). 8 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Poulin v. Zartman (2×)
Alaska · 1975 · confidence medium
Ahlstrom v. Cummings, 388 P.2d 261, 262 (Alaska 1964).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Sloan v. Atlantic Richfield Company (3×)
Alaska · 1975 · confidence medium
The proper test to be applied in reviewing a denial of a motion for a new trial based on the ground that the jury verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence was announced by us in Ahlstrom v. Cummings, 388 P.2d 261, 262 (Alaska 1964).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Martin v. Martin
Alaska · 1975 · confidence medium
We shall not interfere with the exercise of his discretion except in the most exceptional circumstances and to prevent a miscarriage of justice. ( 494 P.2d at 792 , quoting Ahlstrom v. Cummings, 388 P.2d 261, 262 (Alaska 1964)) .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Holiday Inns of America, Inc. v. Peck
Alaska · 1974 · confidence medium
In Ahlstrom v. Cummings, 388 P.2d 261, 262 (Alaska 1964), we held: The matter of granting or refusing a new trial rests in the sound discretion of the trial judge.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fruit v. Schreiner (2×)
Alaska · 1972 · confidence medium
Ahlstrom v. Cummings, 388 P.2d 261, 262 (Alaska 1964); Thomson v. Wheeler Constr.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wernberg v. Matanuska Electric Association
Alaska · 1972 · confidence medium
We shall not interfere with the exercise of his discretion except in the most exceptional circumstances and to prevent a miscarriage of justice, (footnote omitted) Ahlstrom v. Cummings, 388 P.2d 261, 262 (Alaska 1964). 4 In National Bank of Alaska v. McHugh, 416 P.2d 239, 244 (Alaska 1966), the court elaborated, stating: In order for us to hold that the trial judge has abused his discretion, we would have to be left with the definite and firm conviction on the whole record that the judge made a mistake in refusing to order a remittitur or grant a new trial in response to appellant’s motion, …
cited Cited as authority (rule) Dash v. State
Alaska · 1971 · confidence medium
Regarding the motion for a new trial, the rule stated in Ahlstrom v. Cummings, 388 P.2d 261, 262 (Alaska 1964), and approved in State v. 45,621 Sq.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Metcalf v. Bartrand
Alaska · 1971 · confidence medium
Ahlstrom v. Cummings, 388 P.2d 261, 262 (Alaska 1964) [footnotes omitted], 17 .AS 45.45.040 [emphasis added).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dowling Supply & Equipment, Inc. v. City of Anchorage
Alaska · 1971 · confidence medium
The grant or denial of a Civil Rule 59 new trial motion rests in the sound discretion of the trial judge, reversible on appeal only “in the most exceptional circumstances and to prevent a miscarriage of justice.” Ahlstrom v. Cummings, 388 P.2d 261, 262 (Alaska 1964).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. 45,621 Square Feet of Land
Alaska · 1970 · confidence medium
The parties agree that Ahlstrom v. Cummings, 388 P.2d 261, 262 (Alaska 1964) (footnotes omitted), articulates the controlling rule.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Maxwell v. Olsen (2×)
Alaska · 1970 · confidence medium
Otis Elevator Co. v. McLaney, 406 P.2d 7, 9-10 (Alaska 1965). 5 . 388 P.2d 261, 262 (Alaska 1964) (footnote omitted.) 6 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) City of Kotzebue v. Ipalook
Alaska · 1969 · confidence medium
Mitchell v. Knight, 394 P.2d 892, 897 (Alaska 1964); Ahlstrom v. Cummings, 388 P.2d 261, 262 (Alaska 1964); Thomson v. Wheeler Const. Co., 385 P.2d 111, 115 (Alaska 1963); Gregory v. Padilla, 379 P.2d 951, 953 (Alaska 1963). 11 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hash v. Hogan
Alaska · 1969 · confidence medium
Civ.R. 59(a) provides in part that: A new trial may be granted to all or any of the parties and on all or part of the issues in an action in which there has been a trial by jury or in an action tried without a jury, if required in the interest of justice. 8 . 388 P.2d 261, 262 (Alaska 1964) (footnote omitted). 9 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Houger v. Houger
Alaska · 1969 · confidence medium
See Patrick v. Sedwick, 413 P.2d 169, 176 (Alaska 1966); Ahlstrom v. Cummings, 388 P.2d 261, 262 (Alaska 1964). 14 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) United Bonding Insurance Company v. Castle
Alaska · 1968 · confidence medium
Ahlstrom v. Cummings, 388 P.2d 261, 262 (Alaska 1964). 4 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) West v. Administratrix of the Estate of Nershak
Alaska · 1968 · confidence medium
Ahlstrom v. Cummings, 388 P.2d 261, 262 (Alaska 1964) (footnotes omitted).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Harris v. Barrett & Lesh, Inc.
Alaska · 1967 · confidence medium
This court’s past decisions have clearly established that a plaintiff’s own contributory negligence bars any right of recovery. 10 . 388 P.2d 261, 262-263 (Alaska 1964). 11 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bertram v. Harris (2×)
Alaska · 1967 · confidence medium
Ass'n, 379 P.2d 958, 961 (Alaska 1963). [11] Wilson v. Pollet, 416 P.2d 381, 383-384 (Alaska 1966); Ransom v. Haner, 362 P.2d 282, 289-290 (Alaska 1961). [12] 373 P.2d 295 (Alaska 1962). [13] Id. at 298 . [14] National Bank v. McHugh, 416 P.2d 239, 242 (Alaska 1966); McCoy v. Alaska Brick Co., 389 P.2d 1009, 1010 (Alaska 1964). [15] 388 P.2d 261, 262 (Alaska 1964). [16] 390 P.2d 784, 798 (Alaska 1964). [17] Id. at 799 . [18] Civ.R. 16(e) provides: The judge shall make an order (to be drawn and submitted by counsel) which shall recite the action taken at the conference, the amendments allowed t…
cited Cited as authority (rule) National Bank of Alaska v. McHugh
Alaska · 1966 · confidence medium
Montgomery Ward v. Thomas, 394 P.2d 774, 775 (Alaska 1964); Ahlstrom v. Cummings, 388 P.2d 261, 262 (Alaska 1964). 7 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Otis Elevator Company v. McLaney
Alaska · 1965 · confidence medium
Alaska State Housing Authority v. Vincent, 396 P.2d 531, 535 (Alaska 1964); Montgomery Ward v. Thomas, 394 P.2d 774 775 (Alaska 1964); Ahlstrom v. Cummings, 388 P.2d 261, 262 (Alaska 1964). 7 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Tracey v. State
Alaska · 1964 · confidence medium
Gilley v. City of Anchorage, Opinion No. 114, 376 P.2d 484 (Alaska 1963); Bowker v. State, 373 P.2d 500, 504 (Alaska 1962); Ahlstrom v. Cummings, Opinion No. 183, 388 P.2d 261, 262 (Alaska 1964). 2 .
discussed Cited "see" Alaska Children's Services, Inc. v. Smart
Alaska · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ahlstrom v. Cummings, 388 P.2d 261, 262 (Alaska 1964). *902 The evidence as to lost profits in this case was Smart’s testimony that his profit on the ACS job would have been between $15,000 and $18,000 and that his normal profit percentage was “usually anywhere from 18 to 25%.” His testimony was bolstered by the other witnesses.
discussed Cited "see" Scavenius v. City of Anchorage
Alaska · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See 5 Nichols, The Law of Eminent Domain, § 17.2 (Rev. 3rd ed. Sackman 1974), as to authority of courts to alter a jury’s verdict in a condemnation case. 14 . 475 P.2d 553 (Alaska 1970). 15 . 388 P.2d 261, 262 (Alaska 1964) (footnotes omitted). 16 . 475 P.2d at 558 .
cited Cited "see" Patrick v. Sedwick
Alaska · 1966 · signal: see · confidence high
See 5 Moore, Federal Practice § 52.06[2], at 2662 (1964). 23 . 388 P.2d 261, 262 (Alaska 1964). 24 . 394 P.2d 774, 775 (Alaska 1964).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Korakanh Phornsavanh v. State of Alaska
Alaska Ct. App. · 2021 · signal: see also · confidence medium
It is only when it appears that an injustice has been done that there is a need for a new trial ‘in the interest of justice.’”). 40 Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31, 45 (1982). 41 Hunter, 364 P.3d at 447-48 ; see also United States v. Morales, 902 F.2d 604, 605 (“Because the trial judge is in a better position than we to evaluate such a motion — he heard the witnesses and lawyers and watched the jurors as they listened to the evidence — the standard of appellate review is, as the cases cited indicate, a highly deferential one.”), amended, 910 F.2d 467 (7th Cir. 1990). 42 Hunter, 364…
Carl AHLSTROM and Mary Carolyn Ahlstrom, Appellants,
v.
Troy Edwin CUMMINGS and the Administrator of the Estate of Juanita Jelich, Deceased, Appellees
330.
Alaska Supreme Court.
Jan 20, 1964.
388 P.2d 261
Russell E. Arnett, Anchorage, for appellants., David H. Thorsness, Hughes, Thorsness & Lowe, Anchorage, for appellee, Troy Edwin Cummings., James J. Delaney and Eugene F. Wiles, Plummer, Delaney & Wiles, Anchorage, for appellee, The Estate of Juanita Jelich, Deceased.
Nesbett, Dimond, Arend.
Cited by 65 opinions  |  Published
DIMOND, Justice.

Appellants brought this action for personal injuries arising out of an automobile accident. A jury found for the appellees. Appellants contend that errors were committed in the court below which require that the case be remanded for a new trial.

Appellants’ main point is that the jury’s verdict was contrary to law and the weight of the evidence, and therefore the trial court erred in failing to grant a new trial.

The matter of granting or refusing a new trial rests in the sound discretion of the trial judge. We shall not interfere with the exercise of his discretion except in the most exceptional circumstances and to prevent a miscarriage of justice. [1] The circumstances which would require our intervention do not exist here. From a review of the record we cannot say that evidence to support the verdict was completely lacking or was so slight and unconvincing as to make the verdict plainly unreasonable and unjust. [2] On the contrary, we find that the issues which the jury were called upon to' decide turned upon facts which were in dispute, and that there was clearly an evidentiary basis for the jury’s decision.

The next point on this appeal has to do with facts which showed that before the trial appellants’ counsel had told ap-pellee, Troy Cummings, that this action was a “friendly suit”, that appellants did not intend to seek personal recovery against him, and that an insurance company would be responsible for damages. These facts were brought out by Cummings’ testimony in direct examination, and by Cummings’ counsel in both his opening and closing statements to the jury. Appellants contend that to allow such facts'to go before the jury was prejudicial error.

At no time during the trial did appellants’ counsel contend that the statements made by Cummings’ attorney were improper and prejudicial. When Cummings testified as to what had been said to him regarding the friendly nature of the suit by appellants’ counsel, the latter not only voiced no objection, but went on to cross-examine Cummings on the subject of insurance coverage on the automobile involved in the accident. This is a clear case of a waiver by appellants’ counsel of any error that might have taken place. [3] Counsel may not remain silent, interpose no objections, and after a verdict has been returned seize for the first time on the point that opposing counsel’s statements to the jury or the testimony of a witness were improper and prejudicial. [4]

As their last two points appellants argue that the trial judge erred in refusing to admit certain hospital records into evi[*263] dence, and that the jury’s verdict was the result of passion or prejudice. We need not decide the question as to the admissibility of the hospital records, since they related to the issue of damages which passed out of the case when the question of liability was resolved in appellees’ favor. As to the verdict, there is nothing to indicate that the jury was ruled by passion or prejudice.

The judgment is affirmed.

1

. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Yeatts, 122 F.2d 350, 354 (4th Cir.1941).

2

. See Miller v. Pennsylvania R.R., 161 F. Supp. 633, 641 (D.D.C.1958).

3

. “In administering the rules of evidence it is a cardinal precept that if one has an objection to the introduction of evidence he must voice his objection promptly, and that if he fails to do so the objection is waived.” (Citing Alaska cases) Thomson v. Wheeler Const. Co., Opinion No. 163, 385 P.2d 111, 115 (Alaska 1963).

4

.Veal v. Newlin, Inc., 367 P.2d 155, 157 (Alaska 1961); Rank v. State, 373 P.2d 734, 736 (Alaska 1962).