Alaska Statutes
Alaska Stat. § 44.80.010 (2026)
State as a party to actions
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AK-LEGakleg.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 44.80.010. State as a party to actions.
If a statute or regulation designates a state department, agency, board, commission, or public officer as a necessary or proper party to prosecute or defend an action in a court of the state,
(1) the state is also a proper party to the action;
(2) it is not necessary to name a department, agency, board, commission, or public officer as an additional party to the action; and
(3) the Department of Law may bring, prosecute, or defend the action in any court in the name of the state.
If a statute or regulation designates a state department, agency, board, commission, or public officer as a necessary or proper party to prosecute or defend an action in a court of the state,
(1) the state is also a proper party to the action;
(2) it is not necessary to name a department, agency, board, commission, or public officer as an additional party to the action; and
(3) the Department of Law may bring, prosecute, or defend the action in any court in the name of the state.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases, 1981–1991 · leading case: McDaniel v. Cory, 631 P.2d 82 (Alaska 1981).
McDaniel v. Cory, 631 P.2d 82 (Alaska 1981). “AS 44.80.010 states that whenever a suit is brought against an agency of the state, the state is a proper party to the action without having it specifically designated as such.”
State of Alaska v. Chevron Chem. Co. Phillips Pac. Chem. Co. W. Farm Serv., Inc. Etc., 669 F.2d 1299 (9th Cir. 1982). “The majority also errs in relying upon Alaska Stat. § 44.80.010 . Contrary to the majority’s assertion, it provides no clear indication that the State attorney general is permitted to sue on behalf of the University in federal court.”
Alaska Com. Fishing & Agric. Bank v. O/S Alaska Coast, 715 P.2d 707 (Alaska 1986). “See AS 44.80.010. 16 . See AS 24.20.271. 17 .”
Alaska Cargo Transp., Inc. v. Alaska R.R., 834 F. Supp. 1216 (D. Alaska 1991). “Additionally, Alaska Cargo contends that ARRC exists in a capacity separate and distinct from the state because the state is not liable for the debts of ARRC, AS 42.”
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.