Alaska Statutes
Alaska Stat. § 31.05.080 (2026)
Reconsiderations
✓ current as of July 2026 Cite as: Alaska Stat. § 31.05.080 (2026)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AK-LEGakleg.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 31.05.080. Reconsiderations.
(a) Within 20 days after written notice of the entry of an order or decision of the commission, or such further time as the commission grants for good cause shown, a person affected by it may file with the commission an application for reconsideration of the matter determined by the order or decision, setting out the respect in which the order or decision is believed to be erroneous. The commission shall grant or refuse the application in whole or in part within 10 days after it is filed, and failure to act on it within this period is a refusal of it and a final disposition of the application. If reconsideration is granted, the commission may enter a new order or decision after reconsideration as may be required under the circumstances.
(b) [Repealed, § 82 ch 41 SLA 2009.]
(c) [Repealed, § 15 ch 54 SLA 2007.]
(d) [Repealed, § 15 ch 54 SLA 2007.]
(a) Within 20 days after written notice of the entry of an order or decision of the commission, or such further time as the commission grants for good cause shown, a person affected by it may file with the commission an application for reconsideration of the matter determined by the order or decision, setting out the respect in which the order or decision is believed to be erroneous. The commission shall grant or refuse the application in whole or in part within 10 days after it is filed, and failure to act on it within this period is a refusal of it and a final disposition of the application. If reconsideration is granted, the commission may enter a new order or decision after reconsideration as may be required under the circumstances.
(b) [Repealed, § 82 ch 41 SLA 2009.]
(c) [Repealed, § 15 ch 54 SLA 2007.]
(d) [Repealed, § 15 ch 54 SLA 2007.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2006–2021 · leading case: Allen v. ALASKA OIL AND GAS CONSERV. COM'N
Allen v. ALASKA OIL AND GAS CONSERV. COM'N (2006)
“Allen's appeal raises three main questions: (1) Is Allen entitled to a trial de novo as provided in AS 31.05.080? (2) Did the commission apply the proper statutory standard to Allen's unitization petition? (3) Did the commission breach any statutory duty to Allen? Because we…”
Allen v. Alaska Oil & Gas Conservation Commission (2006)
“Allen Is Not Entitled to a De Novo Superior Court Trial Under AS 31.05.080. Allen argues that AS 81.05.”
Hollis S. French v. Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (2021)
“”5 “We exercise our independent judgment on [any] issue concerning the scope of an agency’s authority [because] it involves statutory interpretation, or analysis of legal relationships, about which courts have specialized knowledge and expertise.”
— Alaska Stat. § 31.05.080(a) — 1 case
Hollis S. French v. Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (2021)
“”5 “We exercise our independent judgment on [any] issue concerning the scope of an agency’s authority [because] it involves statutory interpretation, or analysis of legal relationships, about which courts have specialized knowledge and expertise.”
— Alaska Stat. § 31.05.080(b) — 2 cases
Allen v. ALASKA OIL AND GAS CONSERV. COM'N (2006)
“Allen's appeal raises three main questions: (1) Is Allen entitled to a trial de novo as provided in AS 31.05.080? (2) Did the commission apply the proper statutory standard to Allen's unitization petition? (3) Did the commission breach any statutory duty to Allen? Because we…”
Allen v. Alaska Oil & Gas Conservation Commission (2006)
“Allen Is Not Entitled to a De Novo Superior Court Trial Under AS 31.05.080. Allen argues that AS 81.05.”
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.