Alaska Stat. » Chapter 44.62

Alaska Stat. § 44.62.570

Scope of review

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AK-LEGakleg.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 44.62.570. Scope of review.
 (a) An appeal shall be heard by the superior court sitting without a jury.

 (b) Inquiry in an appeal extends to the following questions: (1) whether the agency has proceeded without, or in excess of jurisdiction; (2) whether there was a fair hearing; and (3) whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion. Abuse of discretion is established if the agency has not proceeded in the manner required by law, the order or decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence.

 (c) The court may exercise its independent judgment on the evidence. If it is claimed that the findings are not supported by the evidence, abuse of discretion is established if the court determines that the findings are not supported by
     (1) the weight of the evidence; or

     (2) substantial evidence in the light of the whole record.

 (d) The court may augment the agency record in whole or in part, or hold a hearing de novo. If the court finds that there is relevant evidence which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced or which was improperly excluded at the hearing, the court may
     (1) enter judgment as provided in (e) of this section and remand the case to be reconsidered in the light of that evidence; or

     (2) admit the evidence at the appellate hearing without remanding the case.

 (e) The court shall enter judgment setting aside, modifying, remanding, or affirming the order or decision, without limiting or controlling in any way the discretion legally vested in the agency.

 (f) The court in which proceedings under this section are started may stay the operation of the administrative order or decision until
     (1) the court enters judgment;

     (2) a notice of further appeal from the judgment is filed; or

     (3) the time for filing the notice of appeal expires.

 (g) A stay may not be imposed or continued if the court is satisfied that it is against the public interest.

 (h) If further appeal is taken, the supreme court may, in its discretion, stay the superior court judgment or agency order.

 (i) If a final administrative order or decision is the subject of a proceeding under this section, and the appeal is filed while the penalty imposed is in effect, finishing or complying with the penalty imposed by the administrative agency during the pendency of the proceeding does not make the determination moot.




Notes of Decisions
Cited in 69 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1963–2025 · leading case: Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. Environmental Protection Agency
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. Environmental Protection Agency (2004) scotus · cites it 2× “§ 706 (2)(A); Alaska Stat. § 44.62.570 (b)(3) (2002). Counsel for respondents were unable to identify, either in their briefs or at oral argument, a single State that "does not have in its law the requirement that its own agencies .”
Jager v. State (1975) alaska · cites it 7× “Our review of this question is governed by AS 44.62.570, 21 the scope of review section of the Alaska Administrative Procedure Act.”
Cool Homes, Inc. v. Fairbanks North Star Borough of Equalization (1993) alaska · cites it 6× “" AS 44.62.570(b). Cool Homes contends that AS 44.”
Ketchikan Retail Liquor Dealers Ass'n v. State, Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (1979) alaska · cites it 5× “560 and AS 44.62.570, apply only to adjudicatory proceedings, since they are codified in an article of the statutes entitled "Administrative *438 Adjudication.”
State, Alcoholic Beverage Control Board v. Decker (1985) alaska · cites it 8× “” *486 AS 44.62.570(b). In this case, Decker claims that the evidence in the record does not support the board’s findings.”
Alaska Public Interest Research Group v. State (2007) alaska · cites it 2× “330(a)(13); AS 44.62.570(d). Before the creation of the Appeals Commission, the Alaska Workers' Compensation Act had no express provision related to judicial review of Board decisions.”
Fantasies On 5TH Ave., LLC v. State (2019) alaska · cites it 3× “See AS 44.62.570(b)(3) (specifying review by superior court, but we independently review merits of underlying decision).”
State, Department of Labor v. Boucher (1978) alaska · cites it 4× “Turning to the instant case, the sole question before us is whether the agency's determination that appellees were not available for full-time work is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record.”
Employers Commercial Union Insurance Group v. Schoen (1974) alaska · cites it 6× “The re-examination order did not come within either prong of AS 44.62.570 (d) authorizing remand. The superior court thus had no authority to remand the case, and the court was required to test the sufficiency of the evidence on the record then before it.”
Municipality of Anchorage, Police & Fire Retirement Board v. Coffey (1995) alaska · cites it 3× “Coffey also contends that pursuant to AS 44.62.570 this court may exercise its independent judgment on the evidence.”
Fischback & Moore of Alaska, Inc. v. Lynn (1965) alaska · cites it 5× “If the court finds that there is relevant evidence which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced or which was improperly excluded at the hearing, the court may (1) enter judgment as provided in (e) of this section and remand the case to be…”
Jeffries v. Glacier State Telephone Co. (1979) alaska · cites it 2× “23 Thus, the task remaining before the superior court is that of reviewing the Commission’s findings and conclusions in accordance with the procedures specified in AS 44.62.570. 24 III. RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL In a subsidiary argument, Jeffries asserts that allowing the Commission…”
Show all 69 citing cases →
— Alaska Stat. § 44.62.570(3) — 1 case
Fischback & Moore of Alaska, Inc. v. Lynn (1965) alaska “If the court finds that there is relevant evidence which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced or which was improperly excluded at the hearing, the court may (1) enter judgment as provided in (e) of this section and remand the case to be…”
— Alaska Stat. § 44.62.570(a) — 5 cases
Rosen v. State Board of Public Accountancy (1984) alaska
Fischback & Moore of Alaska, Inc. v. Lynn (1965) alaska “If the court finds that there is relevant evidence which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced or which was improperly excluded at the hearing, the court may (1) enter judgment as provided in (e) of this section and remand the case to be…”
Parson v. STATE, DEPT. OF REVENUE (2008) alaska
Simmonds v. Houser (2019) akd
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission v. Polushkin (1981) alaska
— Alaska Stat. § 44.62.570(b) — 17 cases
Cool Homes, Inc. v. Fairbanks North Star Borough of Equalization (1993) alaska “" AS 44.62.570(b). Cool Homes contends that AS 44.”
Ketchikan Retail Liquor Dealers Ass'n v. State, Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (1979) alaska “560 and AS 44.62.570, apply only to adjudicatory proceedings, since they are codified in an article of the statutes entitled "Administrative *438 Adjudication.”
State, Alcoholic Beverage Control Board v. Decker (1985) alaska “” *486 AS 44.62.570(b). In this case, Decker claims that the evidence in the record does not support the board’s findings.”
White v. Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (1984) alaska
State v. Smith (1979) alaska
— Alaska Stat. § 44.62.570(b)(3) — 6 cases
Fantasies On 5TH Ave., LLC v. State (2019) alaska “See AS 44.62.570(b)(3) (specifying review by superior court, but we independently review merits of underlying decision).”
Adams v. Pipeliners Union 798 (1985) alaska
State, Department of Fish & Game, Sport Fish Division v. Meyer (1995) alaska
Alaska Workmen's Compensation Board v. Marsh (1976) alaska
Seth Lookhart, DMD v. State of Alaska, Board of Dental Examiners (2024) alaska
— Alaska Stat. § 44.62.570(c) — 13 cases
Municipality of Anchorage, Police & Fire Retirement Board v. Coffey (1995) alaska “Coffey also contends that pursuant to AS 44.62.570 this court may exercise its independent judgment on the evidence.”
State, Alcoholic Beverage Control Board v. Decker (1985) alaska “” *486 AS 44.62.570(b). In this case, Decker claims that the evidence in the record does not support the board’s findings.”
Messerli v. Department of Natural Resources (1989) alaska
Jager v. State (1975) alaska “Our review of this question is governed by AS 44.62.570, 21 the scope of review section of the Alaska Administrative Procedure Act.”
In Re Hanson (1975) alaska
— Alaska Stat. § 44.62.570(c)(2) — 4 cases
Fantasies On 5TH Ave., LLC v. State (2019) alaska “See AS 44.62.570(b)(3) (specifying review by superior court, but we independently review merits of underlying decision).”
State, Alcoholic Beverage Control Board v. Decker (1985) alaska “” *486 AS 44.62.570(b). In this case, Decker claims that the evidence in the record does not support the board’s findings.”
In Re the Disciplinary Matter Involving Simpson (1982) alaska
Caywood v. State, Department of Natural Resources (2012) alaska
— Alaska Stat. § 44.62.570(d) — 18 cases
Alaska Public Interest Research Group v. State (2007) alaska “330(a)(13); AS 44.62.570(d). Before the creation of the Appeals Commission, the Alaska Workers' Compensation Act had no express provision related to judicial review of Board decisions.”
Cool Homes, Inc. v. Fairbanks North Star Borough of Equalization (1993) alaska “" AS 44.62.570(b). Cool Homes contends that AS 44.”
State v. Lundgren Pacific Const. Co., Inc. (1979) alaska
Employers Commercial Union Insurance Group v. Schoen (1974) alaska “The re-examination order did not come within either prong of AS 44.62.570 (d) authorizing remand. The superior court thus had no authority to remand the case, and the court was required to test the sufficiency of the evidence on the record then before it.”
Commercial Union Companies v. Smallwood (1976) alaska
— Alaska Stat. § 44.62.570(d)(1) — 1 case
Fischback & Moore of Alaska, Inc. v. Lynn (1965) alaska “If the court finds that there is relevant evidence which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced or which was improperly excluded at the hearing, the court may (1) enter judgment as provided in (e) of this section and remand the case to be…”
— Alaska Stat. § 44.62.570(e) — 4 cases
Fischback & Moore of Alaska, Inc. v. Lynn (1965) alaska “If the court finds that there is relevant evidence which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced or which was improperly excluded at the hearing, the court may (1) enter judgment as provided in (e) of this section and remand the case to be…”
Employers Commercial Union Insurance Group v. Schoen (1974) alaska “The re-examination order did not come within either prong of AS 44.62.570 (d) authorizing remand. The superior court thus had no authority to remand the case, and the court was required to test the sufficiency of the evidence on the record then before it.”
Pipeliners Union 798, United Ass'n v. Alaska State Commission for Human Rights (1984) alaska
Alaska Consumer Advocacy Program v. Alaska Public Utilities Commission (1990) alaska
— Alaska Stat. § 44.62.570(f) — 3 cases
Pipeliners Union 798, United Ass'n v. Alaska State Commission for Human Rights (1984) alaska
ALASKAN CRUDE CORP. v. State (2011) alaska
Keystone Services, Inc. v. Alaska Transportation Commission (1977) alaska
— Alaska Stat. § 44.62.570(g) — 5 cases
Conitz v. Alaska State Commission for Human Rights (2014) alaska
Pipeliners Union 798, United Ass'n v. Alaska State Commission for Human Rights (1984) alaska
Keystone Services, Inc. v. Alaska Transportation Commission (1977) alaska
Simmonds v. Houser (2019) akd
Conitz v. Alaska State Commission for Human Rights (2013) alaska
— Alaska Stat. § 44.62.570(h) — 2 cases
Swindel v. Kelly (1972) alaska
Simmonds v. Houser (2019) akd
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.