Alaska Statutes

Alaska Stat. § 44.62.030 (2026)

Consistency between regulation and statute

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AK-LEGakleg.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 44.62.030. Consistency between regulation and statute.
Article 2. Submission, Filing, and Publication of Regulations.
If, by express or implied terms of a statute, a state agency has authority to adopt regulations to implement, interpret, make specific or otherwise carry out the provisions of the statute, a regulation adopted is not valid or effective unless consistent with the statute and reasonably necessary to carry out the purpose of the statute.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1971–2025 · leading case: State, Dep't of Revenue, Permanent Fund Dividend Div. v. Cosio, 858 P.2d 621 (Alaska 1993).
State, Dep't of Revenue, Permanent Fund Dividend Div. v. Cosio, 858 P.2d 621 (Alaska 1993). · cites it 6× “AS 44.62.030 states: If, by express or implied terms of a statute, a state agency has authority to adopt regulations to implement, interpret, make specific or otherwise carry out the provisions of the statute, a regulation adopted is not valid or effective unless consistent with…”
Bartley v. State, Dep't of Admin., Teachers' Ret. Bd., 110 P.3d 1254 (Alaska 2005). · cites it 3× “022 and AS 44.62.030. The Administrative Procedure Act provision that the Bartleys claim has been violated, AS 44.”
State v. Schmidt, 323 P.3d 647 (Alaska 2014). · cites it 2× “96 Other passages in the 95 When interpreting an ambiguous regulation, we give it an interpretation that avoids putting the regulation into conflict with its enabling statute.”
Richard Roberge v. ASRC Constr. Holding Co. & Arctic Slope Reg'l Corp., 503 P.3d 102 (Alaska 2022). · cites it 2× “” (quoting former AS 44.62.030 (1967))); AS 44.62.030 (“[A] regulation is not valid or effective unless consistent with the statute .”
State v. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co., 723 P.2d 76 (Alaska 1986). · cites it 3× “Regulations promulgated by an executive department must be authorized by statute.”
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. LeResche, 663 P.2d 923 (Alaska 1983). · cites it 2× “180, one of the statutes that authorized their adoption, and thus must be declared invalid pursuant to AS 44.62.030. See note 6 supra. However, we find no such inconsistency.”
Beran v. State, 705 P.2d 1280 (Alaska Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “020 and AS 44.62.030. [7] Alaska Statute 11.81.220 provides: *1287 No conduct constitutes an offense unless it is made an offense (1) by this title; (2) by a statute outside this title; or (3) by a regulation authorized by and lawfully adopted under a statute.”
O'callaghan v. Rue, 996 P.2d 88 (Alaska 2000). · cites it 2× “2d 923, 927 (Alaska 1983); see also AS 44.62.030 (providing that "a regulation adopted is not valid or effective unless consistent with the statute and reasonably necessary to carry out the purpose of the statute”).”
Vail v. Coffman Engineers, Inc., 778 P.2d 211 (Alaska 1989). · cites it 2× “2d 76, 78 (Alaska 1986); AS 44.62.030. A regulation is consistent with a statute if it bears a reasonable relationship to the statutory objective.”
Horowitz v. Alaska Bar Ass'n, 609 P.2d 39 (Alaska 1980). · cites it 2× “AS 44.62.030 provides: Consistency between regulation and statute.”
Trs. for Alaska, Alaska Ctr. for the Env't v. Gorsuch, 835 P.2d 1239 (Alaska 1992). · cites it 2× “AS 44.62.030. The portions of ASCMCRA cited by Trustees do not on their face require that a single permit cover the entire mine operation and related facilities.”
Union Oil Co. of California v. State, Dep't of Nat. Resources, 574 P.2d 1266 (Alaska 1978). · cites it 2× “Union argues that the 90-day period for submission of data is unreasonable, and that it is not necessary to the effectuation of the discovery royalty statute.”
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.