Alaska Stat. » Chapter 22.15
Alaska Statutes

Alaska Stat. § 22.15.050 (2026)

Actions not within civil jurisdiction

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AK-LEGakleg.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 22.15.050. Actions not within civil jurisdiction.
The jurisdiction of the district courts does not extend to
     (1) an action in which the title to real property is in question;

     (2) an action of an equitable nature, except as otherwise provided by law.




Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 1966–2017 · leading case: Stephens v. Hammersley, 550 P.2d 1268 (Alaska 1976).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Stephens v. Hammersley, 550 P.2d 1268 (Alaska 1976). · cites it 10× “[5] Nevertheless, the Hammersleys contend that the district court lacked jurisdiction as a result of AS 22.15.050(1) which provides: The jurisdiction of the district courts does not extend to (1) an action in which the title to real property is in question[.”
Bishop v. Mun. of Anchorage, 685 P.2d 103 (Alaska Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 3× “The district court is specifically denied equitable jurisdiction, AS 22.15.050(2), 8 except to foreclose liens, AS 22.”
In Re the Est. of Fields, 219 P.3d 995 (Alaska 2009). “See AS 22.15.050(1)-(2) ('The jurisdiction of the district courts does not extend to (1) an action in which the title to real property is in question; (2) an action of an equitable nature, except as otherwise provided by law.”
Kopanuk v. AVCP Reg'l Hous. Auth., 902 P.2d 813 (Alaska 1995). · cites it 3× “District courts do not have jurisdiction over “an action in which the title to real property is in question” or “actions of an equitable nature, except as otherwise provided by law.” AS 22.15.050(1), (2). 1 Kopanuk invokes both of these prohibitions in his brief.”
Larson v. Benediktsson, 152 P.3d 1159 (Alaska 2007). “See AS 22.15.050. 7 . Alaska R. Civ. P. 15(a).”
Stephens v. Hammersley, 552 P.2d 652 (Alaska 1976). · cites it 2× “, AS 22.15.050: The jurisdiction of the district courts does not extend to (1) an action in which the title to real property is in question; (2) an action for false imprisonment, libel, slander, malicious prosecution, criminal conversation, seduction upon a promise to marry,…”
Brandner v. Agre, 80 P.3d 691 (Alaska 2003). · cites it 2× “4 But AS 22.15.050 generally denies the district court jurisdiction over “actions of an equitable nature.”
Anchorage Helicopter Serv., Inc. v. Anchorage Westward Hotel, 417 P.2d 903 (Alaska 1966). “AS 22.15.050 provides in part: The jurisdiction of the district magistrate courts does not extend to * * * (2) * ⅜ * actions of an equitable nature * * *.”
State v. Danielson, 809 P.2d 937 (Alaska Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 4× “The state contends that such an order violates AS 22.15.050, 3 because it is equitable in nature and, in effect, turns Danielson’s motion into an action against the state as defendant.”
Johnson v. Robinson, 637 P.2d 1051 (Alaska 1981). · cites it 2× “150 and AS 22.15.050. The superior court’s affirmance of the district court’s judgment is reversed, and the matter remanded to the superior court with directions to remand to the district court for the entry of an order dismissing the forcible entry and detainer action.”
A.L. Cozzetti v. Ray Madrid & All Occupants (Alaska 2017). · cites it 2× “1 He also pointed out that the contract stated that the mobile home was owned by the Agency 1 See AS 22.15.050 (providing district courts lack jurisdiction over actions “in which the title to real property is in question” and actions “of an equitable nature”).”
Shooshanian v. Dire, 237 P.3d 618 (Alaska 2010). “t without these terms is not enforceable [33] and because the parties never entered into an enforceable agreement during the three-year period after Shooshanian gave notice of his desire to purchase the residence under his option right, [34] we determine *627 that the trial…”
— Alaska Stat. § 22.15.050(1) — 4 cases
Stephens v. Hammersley, 550 P.2d 1268 (Alaska 1976). “[5] Nevertheless, the Hammersleys contend that the district court lacked jurisdiction as a result of AS 22.15.050(1) which provides: The jurisdiction of the district courts does not extend to (1) an action in which the title to real property is in question[.”
In Re the Est. of Fields, 219 P.3d 995 (Alaska 2009). “See AS 22.15.050(1)-(2) ('The jurisdiction of the district courts does not extend to (1) an action in which the title to real property is in question; (2) an action of an equitable nature, except as otherwise provided by law.”
Kopanuk v. AVCP Reg'l Hous. Auth., 902 P.2d 813 (Alaska 1995). “District courts do not have jurisdiction over “an action in which the title to real property is in question” or “actions of an equitable nature, except as otherwise provided by law.” AS 22.15.050(1), (2). 1 Kopanuk invokes both of these prohibitions in his brief.”
Stephens v. Hammersley, 552 P.2d 652 (Alaska 1976). “, AS 22.15.050: The jurisdiction of the district courts does not extend to (1) an action in which the title to real property is in question; (2) an action for false imprisonment, libel, slander, malicious prosecution, criminal conversation, seduction upon a promise to marry,…”
— Alaska Stat. § 22.15.050(2) — 3 cases
Bishop v. Mun. of Anchorage, 685 P.2d 103 (Alaska Ct. App. 1984). “The district court is specifically denied equitable jurisdiction, AS 22.15.050(2), 8 except to foreclose liens, AS 22.”
Kopanuk v. AVCP Reg'l Hous. Auth., 902 P.2d 813 (Alaska 1995). “District courts do not have jurisdiction over “an action in which the title to real property is in question” or “actions of an equitable nature, except as otherwise provided by law.” AS 22.15.050(1), (2). 1 Kopanuk invokes both of these prohibitions in his brief.”
State v. Danielson, 809 P.2d 937 (Alaska Ct. App. 1991). “The state contends that such an order violates AS 22.15.050, 3 because it is equitable in nature and, in effect, turns Danielson’s motion into an action against the state as defendant.”
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.