Alaska Statutes
Alaska Stat. § 14.20.205 (2026)
Judicial review. [Repealed, § 14 ch 31 SLA 1996.]
✓ 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 14
cases, 1973–1995 · leading case: Linstad v. Sitka Sch. Dist., 863 P.2d 838 (Alaska 1993).
Linstad v. Sitka Sch. Dist., 863 P.2d 838 (Alaska 1993). “After this decision, Linstad sought judicial review in the superior court pursuant to AS 14.20.205, which provides in part that "[i]f a school board reaches a decision unfavorable to a teacher, the teacher is entitled to a de novo trial in the superior court.”
Matanuska-Susitna Borough v. Lum, 538 P.2d 994 (Alaska 1975). “On September 1, 1972, the Lums commenced an action in the superior court, seeking a trial de novo pursuant to AS 14.20.205, which provides: "If a school board or appeal panel reaches a decision unfavorable to a teacher, the teacher is entitled to a de novo trial in the superior…”
Jerrel v. Kenai Peninsula Borough Sch. Dist., 567 P.2d 760 (Alaska 1977). “Viola Jerrel appeals from a superior court dismissal which denied her a trial de novo pursuant to AS 14.20.205, [1] following her nonretention as a tenured teacher from the Kenai Peninsula Borough School District.”
Shatting v. Dillingham City Sch. Dist., 617 P.2d 9 (Alaska 1980). “In reaching this conclusion the court relied on AS 14.20.205, which provides: "If a school board reaches a decision unfavorable to a teacher, the teacher is entitled to a de novo trial in the superior court.”
Asevedo v. Anchorage Sch. Dist., 843 P.2d 1209 (Alaska 1992). “The petition for review is denied on the issue of whether petitioner has a right to trial by jury in a proceeding conducted under AS 14.20.205. 2. The petition is also denied on the issue of whether the trial court erred in imposing sanctions against the petitioner.”
Crisp v. Kenai Peninsula Borough Sch. Dist., 587 P.2d 1168 (Alaska 1978). “In accordance with AS 14.20.205, 3 Crisp then filed a complaint in the superior court alleging that his termination was wrongful and requesting relief in the form of reinstatement and compensatory damages, the case subsequently went to trial and, after three weeks of…”
Fairbanks North Star Borough Sch. Dist. v. Duncan, 878 P.2d 641 (Alaska 1994). “On petition for review by the Fairbanks North Star Borough School District, the superior court’s ruling that a tenured school teacher is entitled to a jury trial in an action under AS 14.20.205 for review of his dismissal is reversed.”
Sjong v. State, Dep't of Revenue, 622 P.2d 967 (Alaska 1981). “AS 14.20.205 provides tenured teachers a right to judicial review of their termination as follows: Judicial review.”
Nenana City Sch. Dist. v. Coghill, 898 P.2d 929 (Alaska 1995). “AS 14.20.205. NCSD argues that Coghill was a non-tenured teacher and had no right to de novo review by the superior court.”
Fedpac Int'l, Inc. v. State, Dep't of Revenue, 646 P.2d 240 (Alaska 1982). “The teachers relied on AS 14.20.205, which provides: “If a school board or appeal panel reaches a decision unfavorable to a teacher, the teacher is entitled to a de novo trial in superior court.”
Van Gorder v. Matanuska-Susitna Borough Sch. Dist., 513 P.2d 1094 (Alaska 1973). “” AS 14.20.205: “If a school board or appeal panel reaches a decision unfavorable to the teacher, the teacher is entitled to a de novo trial in the superior court.”
Fisher v. Fairbanks North Star Borough Sch. Dist., 704 P.2d 213 (Alaska 1985). “1a is not unconstitutional on its face, a point I would not concede, it is unconstitutional as applied to Fisher in this case.”
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.