Alaska Stat. » Chapter 44.62
Alaska Statutes

Alaska Stat. § 44.62.300 (2026)

Judicial review of validity

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AK-LEGakleg.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 44.62.300. Judicial review of validity.
 (a) An interested person may get a judicial declaration on the validity of a regulation by bringing an action for declaratory relief in the superior court. In addition to any other ground the court may declare the regulation invalid
     (1) for a substantial failure to comply with AS 44.62.010 — 44.62.319; or

     (2) in the case of an emergency regulation or order of repeal, upon the ground that the facts recited in the statement do not constitute an emergency under AS 44.62.250.

 (b) Notwithstanding (a) of this section, a person may not bring an action in court to challenge the adoption, repeal, or amendment of a regulation by a state agency for
     (1) insufficiency or inaccuracy of the information provided under AS 44.62.190(d) or (g);

     (2) failure of the subject line of electronic mail or the title of a written publication to meet the requirements of AS 44.62.190(f);

     (3) failure of the brief description required by AS 44.62.200(d) to comply with the requirements of AS 44.62.200(d) relating to
          (A) the clarity and readability of the brief description; or

          (B) the description of the changes made by the proposed adoption, amendment, or repeal of a regulation; or

     (4) inaccuracy or insufficiency of the answer to a question provided by the state agency under AS 44.62.213.




Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1969–2026 · leading case: Johnson v. Alaska State Dep't of Fish & Game, 836 P.2d 896 (Alaska 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Johnson v. Alaska State Dep't of Fish & Game, 836 P.2d 896 (Alaska 1991). · cites it 5× “300 establishes standing for any "interested person” to “get a judicial declaration on the validity of a regulation by bringing an action for declaratory relief in the superior court.” AS 44.62.300. First, the Department's emergency order in 1980 "is not subject to the…”
State, Dep't of Nat. Resources v. Nondalton Tribal Council, 268 P.3d 293 (Alaska 2012). · cites it 6× “The Tribes responded by arguing that the BBAP was a regulation as defined by the APA 34 and therefore was subject to judicial review at any time under AS 44.62.300. 35 " The Tribes further argued that Appellate Rule 602(a)(2) only applies when an agency acts in an adjudicatory…”
Owsichek v. State, Guide Licensing & Control Bd., 627 P.2d 616 (Alaska 1981). · cites it 4× “2d 8, 29 (Alaska 1976), "[J]udicial review from non-adjudicatory legislative action is provided in the Alaska [Administrative Procedure Act] under AS 44.62.300, which section specifically provides for declaratory relief, but not for a statute of limitations on actions.”
Moore v. State, 553 P.2d 8 (Alaska 1976). · cites it 2× “under AS 44.62.300, which section specifically provides for declaratory relief, but not for a statute of limitations on actions.”
Ketchikan Retail Liquor Dealers Ass'n v. State, Alcoholic Beverage Control Bd., 602 P.2d 434 (Alaska 1979). · cites it 4× “[6] The State relies on Moore v. State, 553 P.2d 8 (Alaska 1976), where we indicated that judicial review of non-adjudicatory administrative action is properly obtained in an action for declaratory relief, by analogy to AS 44.”
Bowers Off. Prods., Inc. v. Univ. of Alaska, 755 P.2d 1095 (Alaska 1988). · cites it 3× “2d 1343, 1346 (Alaska 1983), we discussed the “interested person” criterion of AS 44.62.300. 8 In that case Rutter, a commercial fisherman, complained that the state was issuing too many fishing permits and as a result, Rutter’s own commercial success would be jeopardized.”
State v. Kluti Kaah Native Vill. of Copper Ctr., 831 P.2d 1270 (Alaska 1992). · cites it 4× “Nevertheless, such action is well within the traditions of our legal system which afford *1278 litigants the opportunity to obtain a determination as to the legality of the substantive content of a particular regulation in light of constitutional or controlling statutory…”
Matanuska Maid, Inc. v. State, 620 P.2d 182 (Alaska 1980). · cites it 2× “020, AS 44.62.300, and AS 44.62.560 originates in the constitution.”
State v. First Nat'l Bank of Anchorage, 660 P.2d 406 (Alaska 1982). · cites it 2× “AS 44.62.300; Kingery v. Chapple, 504 P.2d 831, 834 (Alaska 1972).”
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. LeResche, 663 P.2d 923 (Alaska 1983). · cites it 3× “and Marathon Oil Company filed a complaint pursuant to AS 44.62.300, 2 seeking invalidation of 11 AAC 96.”
Stand. Alaska Prod. Co. v. State, Dep't of Revenue, 773 P.2d 201 (Alaska 1989). · cites it 3× “DO ANY OF ALASKA’S DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PROVISIONS GIVE THE SUPERIOR COURT JURISDICTION OVER STANDARD’S CLAIMS? Standard claims that superior court jurisdiction is conferred in this case by 1) Rule 57(a) of the Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure; 2) the Administrative Procedure…”
Johns v. Com. Fisheries Entry Comm'n, 699 P.2d 334 (Alaska 1985). · cites it 4× “Appellants, on the other hand, argue that the threatened loss of their right to enter the fishery constitutes a sufficient personal stake to challenge CFEC regulations limiting permittees to 35.”
Show all 25 citing cases →
— Alaska Stat. § 44.62.300(a) — 4 cases
Jeffrey West & Bonnie West v. The Alaska Mental Health Trust Auth.; State of Alaska, Dep't of Nat. Resources, Trust Land Off.; Louis Oliva; & Stacy Oliva, 467 P.3d 1064 (Alaska 2020).
Exxon Mobil Corp., a New Jersey Corp., Hillcorp Alaska, LLC, & SAExploration, Inc. v. State of Alaska, Dep't of Revenue, 488 P.3d 951 (Alaska 2021).
Michelle Stone Bittner v. State of Alaska, Bd. of Game; & Douglas Vincent-Lang, Comm'r, Dep't of Fish & Game, in an Off. capacity (Alaska 2025).
Pamela L. Bickford v. State of Alaska, Div. of Elections (Alaska 2025).
— Alaska Stat. § 44.62.300(a)(1) — 1 case
Mun. of Anchorage, formerly d/b/a Mun. Light & Power Dep't v. State of Alaska, Dep't of Revenue (Alaska 2026).
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.