Alaska Statutes
Alaska Stat. § 09.40.230 (2026)
Authorization for injunction
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AK-LEGakleg.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 09.40.230. Authorization for injunction.
When it appears that (1) the plaintiff is entitled to the relief demanded, and the relief or any part of it includes restraining the commission or continuance of some act, the commission or continuance of which during the litigation would produce injury to the plaintiff; or (2) the defendant is doing, or threatens or is about to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done some act in violation of the plaintiff's rights concerning the subject of the action and tending to render the judgment ineffectual; or (3) the defendant threatens or is about to remove or dispose of property or a part of it with intent to delay or defraud creditors, an injunction may be allowed to restrain such act, removal, or disposition.
When it appears that (1) the plaintiff is entitled to the relief demanded, and the relief or any part of it includes restraining the commission or continuance of some act, the commission or continuance of which during the litigation would produce injury to the plaintiff; or (2) the defendant is doing, or threatens or is about to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done some act in violation of the plaintiff's rights concerning the subject of the action and tending to render the judgment ineffectual; or (3) the defendant threatens or is about to remove or dispose of property or a part of it with intent to delay or defraud creditors, an injunction may be allowed to restrain such act, removal, or disposition.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1
case, 1996–1996 · leading case: Thomas, Head & Greisen Employees Trust v. Buster, 95 F.3d 1449 (9th Cir. 1996).
Thomas, Head & Greisen Employees Trust v. Buster, 95 F.3d 1449 (9th Cir. 1996). “The district court found it substantially probable that the $125,000 was related specifically to property which was fraudulently conveyed to defraud Thomas, Head; the deposit requirement was not a substitute for a supersedeas bond.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.