Alaska Statutes
Alaska Stat. § 28.20.240 (2026)
Proof required when driving privilege is restricted
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AK-LEGakleg.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 28.20.240. Proof required when driving privilege is restricted.
Whenever under a law of this state the license of a person is suspended, revoked, limited under AS 28.15.201, or canceled for any reason, the department may not issue to that person a new or renewal of license until permitted to do so under the motor vehicle laws of this state. A period of suspension, revocation, or cancellation continues until proof of financial responsibility for the future is provided. Upon expiration of a period of limitation, the license remains revoked until proof of financial responsibility for the future is provided.
Whenever under a law of this state the license of a person is suspended, revoked, limited under AS 28.15.201, or canceled for any reason, the department may not issue to that person a new or renewal of license until permitted to do so under the motor vehicle laws of this state. A period of suspension, revocation, or cancellation continues until proof of financial responsibility for the future is provided. Upon expiration of a period of limitation, the license remains revoked until proof of financial responsibility for the future is provided.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: Bradshaw v. State, Dep't of Admin., Div. of Motor Vehs., 224 P.3d 118 (Alaska 2010).
Bradshaw v. State, Dep't of Admin., Div. of Motor Vehs., 224 P.3d 118 (Alaska 2010). “But AS 28.20.240, Bradshaw's orders of suspension, and the hearing officer's decisions all stated that any suspension would continue after the initial suspension period until he provided proof of financial responsibility for the future.”
Hartung v. State, Dep't of Labor, 22 P.3d 1 (Alaska 2001). “4 This case requires us to interpret the statutory language of AS 28.20.240. We have stated that "[the interpretation of a statute presents a question of law.”
Manderson v. State, 655 P.2d 1320 (Alaska Ct. App. 1983). “The financial responsibility, law extended the suspension period to January 12, 1986 (see AS 28.20.240). Two months later, in March 1982, he was convicted of DWI and DWSOL.”
Kasey Malay v. State of Alaska, Kasey Malay v. State of Alaska (Alaska Ct. App. 2026). “On appeal, Malay acknowledges that AS 28.20.240 makes clear that a revoked license remains revoked even after expiration of the “period of revocation.”
— Alaska Stat. § 28.20.240(f) — 1 case
Hartung v. State, Dep't of Labor, 22 P.3d 1 (Alaska 2001). “4 This case requires us to interpret the statutory language of AS 28.20.240. We have stated that "[the interpretation of a statute presents a question of law.”
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.