Alaska Stat. » Chapter 33.30
Alaska Statutes

Alaska Stat. § 33.30.100 (2026)

Commissioner to designate facility. [Repealed, § 12 ch 88 SLA 1986.]

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AK-LEGakleg.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 33.30.100. Commissioner to designate facility. [Repealed, § 12 ch 88 SLA 1986.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1969–2015 · leading case: Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238 (1983).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238 (1983). · cites it 2× “, Alaska Stat. Ann. § 33.30.100 (1982). Corrections compacts between States, implemented by statutes, authorize incarceration of a prisoner of one State in another State's prison.”
Rust v. State, 582 P.2d 134 (Alaska 1978). · cites it 2× “In this regard, AS 33.30.100 provides, in part, that “The commissioner shall designate the facility where the sentence shall be served.”
Nell v. State, 642 P.2d 1361 (Alaska Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 2× “090, the trial court is empowered only to commit a person convicted of an offense to the Commissioner of Health and Social Serv *1371 ices, and under AS 33.30.100, it is only the commissioner who is empowered to designate the facility where the sentence shall be served.”
Richards v. State, 451 P.2d 359 (Alaska 1969). “AS 33.30.100 provides that “The commissioner [of the Department of Health and Welfare] shall designate the facility where the sentence shall be served.”
Dwyer v. State, 449 P.2d 282 (Alaska 1969). “060 reads: An authority, receiving physical custody for the purpose of incarceration of a person sentenced by a court under the terms of an agreement made under this section, shall be considered as acting solely as agent of this state.”
the Texas Educ. Agency & Mike Morath, Comm'r of Educ., in His Off. Capacity v. Academy of Careers & Tech., Inc. D/B/A Academy of Careers & Tech. Charter Sch. (Tex. App. 2015). “, Alaska Stat.Ann. § 33.30.100 (1982). Corrections the State had not created a constitutionally protected compacts between States, implemented by statutes, liberty interest.”
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.