Alaska Statutes
Alaska Stat. § 44.62.460 (2026)
Evidence rules
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AK-LEGakleg.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 44.62.460. Evidence rules.
(a) Oral evidence may be taken only on oath or affirmation.
(b) Each party may
(1) call and examine witnesses;
(2) introduce exhibits;
(3) cross-examine opposing witnesses on matter relevant to the issues, even though that matter was not covered in the direct examination;
(4) impeach a witness regardless of which party first called the witness to testify; and
(5) rebut the adverse evidence.
(c) If the respondent does not testify in behalf of the respondent, the respondent may be called and examined as if under cross-examination.
(d) The hearing need not be conducted according to technical rules relating to evidence and witnesses. Relevant evidence shall be admitted if it is the sort of evidence on which responsible persons are accustomed to rely in the conduct of serious affairs, regardless of the existence of a common law or statutory rule that makes improper the admission of the evidence over objection in a civil action. Hearsay evidence may be used to supplement or explain direct evidence but is not sufficient by itself to support a finding unless it would be admissible over objection in a civil action. The rules of privilege are effective to the same extent that they are recognized in a civil action. Irrelevant and unduly repetitious evidence shall be excluded.
(e) Unless a different standard of proof is stated in applicable law, the
(1) petitioner has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence if an accusation has been filed under AS 44.62.360 or if the renewal of a right, authority, license, or privilege has been denied;
(2) respondent has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence if a right, authority, license, or privilege has been initially denied or not issued.
(a) Oral evidence may be taken only on oath or affirmation.
(b) Each party may
(1) call and examine witnesses;
(2) introduce exhibits;
(3) cross-examine opposing witnesses on matter relevant to the issues, even though that matter was not covered in the direct examination;
(4) impeach a witness regardless of which party first called the witness to testify; and
(5) rebut the adverse evidence.
(c) If the respondent does not testify in behalf of the respondent, the respondent may be called and examined as if under cross-examination.
(d) The hearing need not be conducted according to technical rules relating to evidence and witnesses. Relevant evidence shall be admitted if it is the sort of evidence on which responsible persons are accustomed to rely in the conduct of serious affairs, regardless of the existence of a common law or statutory rule that makes improper the admission of the evidence over objection in a civil action. Hearsay evidence may be used to supplement or explain direct evidence but is not sufficient by itself to support a finding unless it would be admissible over objection in a civil action. The rules of privilege are effective to the same extent that they are recognized in a civil action. Irrelevant and unduly repetitious evidence shall be excluded.
(e) Unless a different standard of proof is stated in applicable law, the
(1) petitioner has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence if an accusation has been filed under AS 44.62.360 or if the renewal of a right, authority, license, or privilege has been denied;
(2) respondent has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence if a right, authority, license, or privilege has been initially denied or not issued.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1964–2025 · leading case: Whaley v. Alaska Workers' Comp. Bd., 648 P.2d 955 (Alaska 1982).
Whaley v. Alaska Workers' Comp. Bd., 648 P.2d 955 (Alaska 1982). “" AS 44.62.460 dispenses with the rules of evidence in administrative proceedings, and subsection (d) of that statute provides that evidence which would be inadmissible in a civil action, such as hearsay evidence, shall be admitted in an administrative proceeding if it is the…”
DeNuptiis v. Unocal Corp., 63 P.3d 272 (Alaska 2003). “” In a number of cases we have recognized the application of other rules specified in AS 44.62.460 to workers’ compensation proceedings.”
Sandra J. Rusch v. Se. Alaska Reg'l Health Consortium & Alaska Nat'l Ins. Co., Brenda Dockter v. SEARHC & Alaska Nat'l Ins. Co., 453 P.3d 784 (Alaska 2019). “70 The Commission erroneously evaluated this issue as the application of a Board regulation and incorrectly stated that AS 44.62.460 does not apply to Board hearings because of a Board regulation.”
Com. Union Companies v. Smallwood, 550 P.2d 1261 (Alaska 1976). “the statutes permitting informal administrative proceedings, AS 44.62.460 (d) and AS 23.30.135(a), were never intended to, and could not, abrogate the right to cross-examination in an adjudicatory proceeding.”
Employers Com. Union Ins. Grp. v. Schoen, 519 P.2d 819 (Alaska 1974). “120(c) parallels the Administrative Procedure Act, which provides in AS 44.62.460(b): Each party may ... (3) cross-examine opposing witnesses on matter relevant to the issues, even though that matter was not covered in the direct examination.”
Ketchikan Retail Liquor Dealers Ass'n v. State, Alcoholic Beverage Control Bd., 602 P.2d 434 (Alaska 1979). “Nevertheless, the failure of the Board to comply with the requirements of the APA can have no effect on appellants' right to seek the appellate review clearly authorized by AS 44.”
State of Alaska v. The Est. of Harry Powell, 563 P.3d 50 (Alaska 2025). “38 AS 44.62.460(d); see, e.g., Alaska R. Civ.”
Veco Alaska, Inc. v. State, Dep't of Labor, Div. of Workers' Comp., Second Injury Fund, 189 P.3d 983 (Alaska 2008). “In the absence of a specific standard, we apply the general "preponderance of the evidence" standard provided by the Alaska Administrative Procedure Act, AS 44.62.460(e). See DeNuptiis v. Unocal Corp.”
Brown v. Nw. Airlines, Inc., 444 P.2d 529 (Alaska 1968). “AS 44.62.460(d) provides in part that: Hearsay evidence may be used to supplement or explain direct evidence but is not sufficient by itself to support a finding unless it would be admissible over objection in a civil action.”
Stevens v. State, Alcoholic Beverage Control Bd., 257 P.3d 1154 (Alaska 2011). “AS 44.62.460(e)-(e)(1). 30 . Alaska Const.”
Cook v. Alaska Workmen's Comp. Bd., 476 P.2d 29 (Alaska 1970). “2d 529 (Alaska 1968) we concluded that AS 44.62.460(d) of our Administrative Procedure Act applies to compensation proceedings.”
Vonder Haar v. State, Dept. of Admin., Div. of Motor Vehs., 349 P.3d 173 (Alaska 2015). “At oral argument before this court, Paige asserted that the Department bore the burden to prove that the vehicle did not comply with the safety standards, citing a provision of the Administrative Procedure Act, AS 44.62.460(e)(2). But the APA's hearing procedures are not…”
— Alaska Stat. § 44.62.460(b) — 3 cases
Sandra J. Rusch v. Se. Alaska Reg'l Health Consortium & Alaska Nat'l Ins. Co., Brenda Dockter v. SEARHC & Alaska Nat'l Ins. Co., 453 P.3d 784 (Alaska 2019). “70 The Commission erroneously evaluated this issue as the application of a Board regulation and incorrectly stated that AS 44.62.460 does not apply to Board hearings because of a Board regulation.”
Com. Union Companies v. Smallwood, 550 P.2d 1261 (Alaska 1976). “the statutes permitting informal administrative proceedings, AS 44.62.460 (d) and AS 23.30.135(a), were never intended to, and could not, abrogate the right to cross-examination in an adjudicatory proceeding.”
Employers Com. Union Ins. Grp. v. Schoen, 519 P.2d 819 (Alaska 1974). “120(c) parallels the Administrative Procedure Act, which provides in AS 44.62.460(b): Each party may ... (3) cross-examine opposing witnesses on matter relevant to the issues, even though that matter was not covered in the direct examination.”
— Alaska Stat. § 44.62.460(d) — 7 cases
Whaley v. Alaska Workers' Comp. Bd., 648 P.2d 955 (Alaska 1982). “" AS 44.62.460 dispenses with the rules of evidence in administrative proceedings, and subsection (d) of that statute provides that evidence which would be inadmissible in a civil action, such as hearsay evidence, shall be admitted in an administrative proceeding if it is the…”
State of Alaska v. The Est. of Harry Powell, 563 P.3d 50 (Alaska 2025). “38 AS 44.62.460(d); see, e.g., Alaska R. Civ.”
Employers Com. Union Ins. Grp. v. Schoen, 519 P.2d 819 (Alaska 1974). “120(c) parallels the Administrative Procedure Act, which provides in AS 44.62.460(b): Each party may ... (3) cross-examine opposing witnesses on matter relevant to the issues, even though that matter was not covered in the direct examination.”
Sandra J. Rusch v. Se. Alaska Reg'l Health Consortium & Alaska Nat'l Ins. Co., Brenda Dockter v. SEARHC & Alaska Nat'l Ins. Co., 453 P.3d 784 (Alaska 2019). “70 The Commission erroneously evaluated this issue as the application of a Board regulation and incorrectly stated that AS 44.62.460 does not apply to Board hearings because of a Board regulation.”
Brown v. Nw. Airlines, Inc., 444 P.2d 529 (Alaska 1968). “AS 44.62.460(d) provides in part that: Hearsay evidence may be used to supplement or explain direct evidence but is not sufficient by itself to support a finding unless it would be admissible over objection in a civil action.”
— Alaska Stat. § 44.62.460(e) — 5 cases
DeNuptiis v. Unocal Corp., 63 P.3d 272 (Alaska 2003). “” In a number of cases we have recognized the application of other rules specified in AS 44.62.460 to workers’ compensation proceedings.”
Veco Alaska, Inc. v. State, Dep't of Labor, Div. of Workers' Comp., Second Injury Fund, 189 P.3d 983 (Alaska 2008). “In the absence of a specific standard, we apply the general "preponderance of the evidence" standard provided by the Alaska Administrative Procedure Act, AS 44.62.460(e). See DeNuptiis v. Unocal Corp.”
Sandra J. Rusch v. Se. Alaska Reg'l Health Consortium & Alaska Nat'l Ins. Co., Brenda Dockter v. SEARHC & Alaska Nat'l Ins. Co., 453 P.3d 784 (Alaska 2019). “70 The Commission erroneously evaluated this issue as the application of a Board regulation and incorrectly stated that AS 44.62.460 does not apply to Board hearings because of a Board regulation.”
Stevens v. State, Alcoholic Beverage Control Bd., 257 P.3d 1154 (Alaska 2011). “AS 44.62.460(e)-(e)(1). 30 . Alaska Const.”
Alaska Alcoholic Beverage Control Bd. v. Malcolm, Inc., 391 P.2d 441 (Alaska 1964).
— Alaska Stat. § 44.62.460(e)(1) — 1 case
DeNuptiis v. Unocal Corp., 63 P.3d 272 (Alaska 2003). “” In a number of cases we have recognized the application of other rules specified in AS 44.62.460 to workers’ compensation proceedings.”
— Alaska Stat. § 44.62.460(e)(2) — 1 case
Vonder Haar v. State, Dept. of Admin., Div. of Motor Vehs., 349 P.3d 173 (Alaska 2015). “At oral argument before this court, Paige asserted that the Department bore the burden to prove that the vehicle did not comply with the safety standards, citing a provision of the Administrative Procedure Act, AS 44.62.460(e)(2). But the APA's hearing procedures are not…”
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.