Alaska Statutes
Alaska Stat. § 13.26.145 (2026)
[Renumbered as
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AK-LEGakleg.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases, 1983–2014 · leading case: In re the Prot. Proceedings of M.K., 278 P.3d 876 (Alaska 2012).
In re the Prot. Proceedings of M.K., 278 P.3d 876 (Alaska 2012). “if no person or private guardianship association is willing and qualified to perform the function"-when read in conjunction with AS 13.26.145, which lists priority of appointment-requires that M.”
In Re the Prot. Proceedings of Tammy J., 270 P.3d 805 (Alaska 2012). “First, they argue that the trial court failed to apply the preference for parents in guardianship appointments as required by AS 13.26.145. Second, they argue that the trial court erred in concluding that the constitutional right to parent a child dissolves when the child…”
H.C.S. v. Cmty. Advocacy Proj. of Alaska, Inc., 42 P.3d 1093 (Alaska 2002). “- Relying on AS 13.26.145 and AS 18.26.210, he argues that the court should have removed CAPA, an "institutional stranger," and appointed himself, absent findings that he would be unfit as a guardian and conservator.”
Matter of OSD, 672 P.2d 1304 (Alaska 1983). “[1] AS 13.26.145(d) establishes priorities among potential guardians.”
Hcs v. Capa, 42 P.3d 1093 (Alaska 2002). “Relying on AS 13.26.145 and AS 13.26.210, he argues that the court should have removed CAPA, an "institutional stranger," and appointed himself, absent findings that he would be unfit as a guardian and conservator.”
In re Guardianship of Benjamin E., 289 Neb. 693 (Neb. 2014). “Based on this rationale, it declined to extend the parental preference 13 Alaska Stat. § 13.26.145 (f) (2004). 14 In re Tammy J.”
In the Matter of the Prot. Proceedings of Melissa A. (Alaska 2012). “OPA contends that neither Mia nor John is qualified.”
In Re the Prot. Proceedings of Melissa A., 269 P.3d 1174 (Alaska 2012). “" AS 13.26.145(D). 14 . John's testimony at the guardianship hearing also implied that he might respect restrictions placed on Melissa's place of residence.”
— Alaska Stat. § 13.26.145(D) — 1 case
In Re the Prot. Proceedings of Melissa A., 269 P.3d 1174 (Alaska 2012). “" AS 13.26.145(D). 14 . John's testimony at the guardianship hearing also implied that he might respect restrictions placed on Melissa's place of residence.”
— Alaska Stat. § 13.26.145(F) — 2 cases
In re the Prot. Proceedings of M.K., 278 P.3d 876 (Alaska 2012). “if no person or private guardianship association is willing and qualified to perform the function"-when read in conjunction with AS 13.26.145, which lists priority of appointment-requires that M.”
In Re the Prot. Proceedings of Tammy J., 270 P.3d 805 (Alaska 2012). “First, they argue that the trial court failed to apply the preference for parents in guardianship appointments as required by AS 13.26.145. Second, they argue that the trial court erred in concluding that the constitutional right to parent a child dissolves when the child…”
— Alaska Stat. § 13.26.145(P) — 1 case
In Re the Prot. Proceedings of Tammy J., 270 P.3d 805 (Alaska 2012). “First, they argue that the trial court failed to apply the preference for parents in guardianship appointments as required by AS 13.26.145. Second, they argue that the trial court erred in concluding that the constitutional right to parent a child dissolves when the child…”
— Alaska Stat. § 13.26.145(a) — 1 case
In re the Prot. Proceedings of M.K., 278 P.3d 876 (Alaska 2012). “if no person or private guardianship association is willing and qualified to perform the function"-when read in conjunction with AS 13.26.145, which lists priority of appointment-requires that M.”
— Alaska Stat. § 13.26.145(b) — 1 case
In re the Prot. Proceedings of M.K., 278 P.3d 876 (Alaska 2012). “if no person or private guardianship association is willing and qualified to perform the function"-when read in conjunction with AS 13.26.145, which lists priority of appointment-requires that M.”
— Alaska Stat. § 13.26.145(b)(3) — 1 case
In re the Prot. Proceedings of M.K., 278 P.3d 876 (Alaska 2012). “if no person or private guardianship association is willing and qualified to perform the function"-when read in conjunction with AS 13.26.145, which lists priority of appointment-requires that M.”
— Alaska Stat. § 13.26.145(c) — 1 case
In re the Prot. Proceedings of M.K., 278 P.3d 876 (Alaska 2012). “if no person or private guardianship association is willing and qualified to perform the function"-when read in conjunction with AS 13.26.145, which lists priority of appointment-requires that M.”
— Alaska Stat. § 13.26.145(d) — 7 cases
In re the Prot. Proceedings of M.K., 278 P.3d 876 (Alaska 2012). “if no person or private guardianship association is willing and qualified to perform the function"-when read in conjunction with AS 13.26.145, which lists priority of appointment-requires that M.”
In Re the Prot. Proceedings of Tammy J., 270 P.3d 805 (Alaska 2012). “First, they argue that the trial court failed to apply the preference for parents in guardianship appointments as required by AS 13.26.145. Second, they argue that the trial court erred in concluding that the constitutional right to parent a child dissolves when the child…”
H.C.S. v. Cmty. Advocacy Proj. of Alaska, Inc., 42 P.3d 1093 (Alaska 2002). “- Relying on AS 13.26.145 and AS 18.26.210, he argues that the court should have removed CAPA, an "institutional stranger," and appointed himself, absent findings that he would be unfit as a guardian and conservator.”
Matter of OSD, 672 P.2d 1304 (Alaska 1983). “[1] AS 13.26.145(d) establishes priorities among potential guardians.”
Hcs v. Capa, 42 P.3d 1093 (Alaska 2002). “Relying on AS 13.26.145 and AS 13.26.210, he argues that the court should have removed CAPA, an "institutional stranger," and appointed himself, absent findings that he would be unfit as a guardian and conservator.”
— Alaska Stat. § 13.26.145(d)(1) — 2 cases
H.C.S. v. Cmty. Advocacy Proj. of Alaska, Inc., 42 P.3d 1093 (Alaska 2002). “- Relying on AS 13.26.145 and AS 18.26.210, he argues that the court should have removed CAPA, an "institutional stranger," and appointed himself, absent findings that he would be unfit as a guardian and conservator.”
Hcs v. Capa, 42 P.3d 1093 (Alaska 2002). “Relying on AS 13.26.145 and AS 13.26.210, he argues that the court should have removed CAPA, an "institutional stranger," and appointed himself, absent findings that he would be unfit as a guardian and conservator.”
— Alaska Stat. § 13.26.145(d)(3) — 1 case
Hcs v. Capa, 42 P.3d 1093 (Alaska 2002). “Relying on AS 13.26.145 and AS 13.26.210, he argues that the court should have removed CAPA, an "institutional stranger," and appointed himself, absent findings that he would be unfit as a guardian and conservator.”
— Alaska Stat. § 13.26.145(d)(7) — 1 case
In re the Prot. Proceedings of M.K., 278 P.3d 876 (Alaska 2012). “if no person or private guardianship association is willing and qualified to perform the function"-when read in conjunction with AS 13.26.145, which lists priority of appointment-requires that M.”
— Alaska Stat. § 13.26.145(e) — 4 cases
H.C.S. v. Cmty. Advocacy Proj. of Alaska, Inc., 42 P.3d 1093 (Alaska 2002). “- Relying on AS 13.26.145 and AS 18.26.210, he argues that the court should have removed CAPA, an "institutional stranger," and appointed himself, absent findings that he would be unfit as a guardian and conservator.”
In Re the Prot. Proceedings of Tammy J., 270 P.3d 805 (Alaska 2012). “First, they argue that the trial court failed to apply the preference for parents in guardianship appointments as required by AS 13.26.145. Second, they argue that the trial court erred in concluding that the constitutional right to parent a child dissolves when the child…”
Matter of OSD, 672 P.2d 1304 (Alaska 1983). “[1] AS 13.26.145(d) establishes priorities among potential guardians.”
Hcs v. Capa, 42 P.3d 1093 (Alaska 2002). “Relying on AS 13.26.145 and AS 13.26.210, he argues that the court should have removed CAPA, an "institutional stranger," and appointed himself, absent findings that he would be unfit as a guardian and conservator.”
— Alaska Stat. § 13.26.145(f) — 3 cases
In re the Prot. Proceedings of M.K., 278 P.3d 876 (Alaska 2012). “if no person or private guardianship association is willing and qualified to perform the function"-when read in conjunction with AS 13.26.145, which lists priority of appointment-requires that M.”
In Re the Prot. Proceedings of Tammy J., 270 P.3d 805 (Alaska 2012). “First, they argue that the trial court failed to apply the preference for parents in guardianship appointments as required by AS 13.26.145. Second, they argue that the trial court erred in concluding that the constitutional right to parent a child dissolves when the child…”
In the Matter of the Prot. Proceedings of Melissa A. (Alaska 2012). “OPA contends that neither Mia nor John is qualified.”
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.