Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
21 Alaska opinions name it 2 courts 1970–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Alaska courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Gieffels v. Stategreen2 sentences2008See Gieffels v. State, 552 P.2d 661 , 666 & n. 3 (Alaska 1976); see also Tunley v. Anchorage School District, 631 P.2d 67 , 73 n. 12 (Alaska 1980). 2 . 1981Before sentence, the court may in its discretion allow the defendant to withdraw his plea for any fair and just reason unless the prosecution has been substantially prejudiced by reliance upon the defendant's plea. (3) A plea of guilty or nolo contendere which is not accepted or has been withdrawn shall not be received against the defendant in any criminal proceedings. [3] "[T]o the extent that the rule does not infringe upon the substantive right created by statute, the provisions of Rule 25(d) supersede the legislative enactment." Gieffels v. State, 552 P.2d 661, 668 (Alaska 1976). [4] For e | 2 | 2 |
State v. Hannagangreen2 sentences1978See also ABA Standards, Trial by Jury § 5.2, and Commentary at 134-38 (Approved Draft 1968). [5] Criminal Rule 38(a) provides: The defendant shall be present at the arraignment, at the preliminary hearing, at the time of plea, at the omnibus hearing, and at every stage of the trial, including the impaneling of the jury and return of the verdict, and at the imposition of sentence, except as otherwise provided in this rule. [6] Hannagan, 559 P.2d at 1064 . [7] 422 P.2d at 105 . [8] 559 P.2d at 1065 . [9] 440 P.2d at 417 . [10] State v. Hannagan, 559 P.2d 1059, 1065 (Alaska 1977). [11] In this re 1978See also ABA Standards, Trial by Jury § 5.2, and Commentary at 134-38 (Approved Draft 1968). [5] Criminal Rule 38(a) provides: The defendant shall be present at the arraignment, at the preliminary hearing, at the time of plea, at the omnibus hearing, and at every stage of the trial, including the impaneling of the jury and return of the verdict, and at the imposition of sentence, except as otherwise provided in this rule. [6] Hannagan, 559 P.2d at 1064 . [7] 422 P.2d at 105 . [8] 559 P.2d at 1065 . [9] 440 P.2d at 417 . [10] State v. Hannagan, 559 P.2d 1059, 1065 (Alaska 1977). [11] In this re | 1 | 2 |
Gafford v. Stategreen2 sentences1978See also ABA Standards, Trial by Jury § 5.2, and Commentary at 134-38 (Approved Draft 1968). [5] Criminal Rule 38(a) provides: The defendant shall be present at the arraignment, at the preliminary hearing, at the time of plea, at the omnibus hearing, and at every stage of the trial, including the impaneling of the jury and return of the verdict, and at the imposition of sentence, except as otherwise provided in this rule. [6] Hannagan, 559 P.2d at 1064 . [7] 422 P.2d at 105 . [8] 559 P.2d at 1065 . [9] 440 P.2d at 417 . [10] State v. Hannagan, 559 P.2d 1059, 1065 (Alaska 1977). [11] In this re 1978Hannagan, 559 P.2d at 1064 . . 422 P.2d at 105 . . 559 P.2d at 1065 . . 440 P.2d at 417 . . | 1 | 2 |
Noffke v. Stategreen2 sentences1978See also ABA Standards, Trial by Jury § 5.2, and Commentary at 134-38 (Approved Draft 1968). [5] Criminal Rule 38(a) provides: The defendant shall be present at the arraignment, at the preliminary hearing, at the time of plea, at the omnibus hearing, and at every stage of the trial, including the impaneling of the jury and return of the verdict, and at the imposition of sentence, except as otherwise provided in this rule. [6] Hannagan, 559 P.2d at 1064 . [7] 422 P.2d at 105 . [8] 559 P.2d at 1065 . [9] 440 P.2d at 417 . [10] State v. Hannagan, 559 P.2d 1059, 1065 (Alaska 1977). [11] In this re 1978Hannagan, 559 P.2d at 1064 . . 422 P.2d at 105 . . 559 P.2d at 1065 . . 440 P.2d at 417 . . | 1 | 2 |
Walker v. Stategreen1 sentence2016Cf. Walker, 652 P.2d at 95 ("M.M.'s identification at the scene was certain and without hesitation or equivocation."); Howe, 611 P.2d at 18 (holding an identification reliable in part because the witness stated that Howe was the man that robbed him 'without a doubt'"); Holden, 602 P.2d at 457 ("[The witness] testified at the omnibus hearing that she 'was positive' when she saw the photograph that the man depicted was her assailant. | 1 | 1 |
Holden v. Stategreen1 sentence2016Cf. Walker, 652 P.2d at 95 ("M.M.'s identification at the scene was certain and without hesitation or equivocation."); Howe, 611 P.2d at 18 (holding an identification reliable in part because the witness stated that Howe was the man that robbed him 'without a doubt'"); Holden, 602 P.2d at 457 ("[The witness] testified at the omnibus hearing that she 'was positive' when she saw the photograph that the man depicted was her assailant. | 1 | 1 |
Howe v. Stategreen1 sentence2016Cf. Walker, 652 P.2d at 95 ("M.M.'s identification at the scene was certain and without hesitation or equivocation."); Howe, 611 P.2d at 18 (holding an identification reliable in part because the witness stated that Howe was the man that robbed him 'without a doubt'"); Holden, 602 P.2d at 457 ("[The witness] testified at the omnibus hearing that she 'was positive' when she saw the photograph that the man depicted was her assailant. | 1 | 1 |
Cleveland v. Stategreen1 sentence2010Richards v. State, 451 P.2d 359, 361-62 (Alaska 1969); Newcomb v. State, 800 P.2d 935, 943 (Alaska App.1990) (citing Cleveland v. State, 538 P.2d 1006, 1008-09 (Alaska 1975)). 3 . | 1 | 1 |
Richards v. Stategreen1 sentence2010Richards v. State, 451 P.2d 359, 361-62 (Alaska 1969); Newcomb v. State, 800 P.2d 935, 943 (Alaska App.1990) (citing Cleveland v. State, 538 P.2d 1006, 1008-09 (Alaska 1975)). 3 . | 1 | 1 |
Newcomb v. Stategreen1 sentence2010Richards v. State, 451 P.2d 359, 361-62 (Alaska 1969); Newcomb v. State, 800 P.2d 935, 943 (Alaska App.1990) (citing Cleveland v. State, 538 P.2d 1006, 1008-09 (Alaska 1975)). 3 . | 1 | 1 |
Tunley v. Municipality of Anchorage School Districtgreen1 sentence2008See Gieffels v. State, 552 P.2d 661 , 666 & n. 3 (Alaska 1976); see also Tunley v. Anchorage School District, 631 P.2d 67 , 73 n. 12 (Alaska 1980). 2 . | 1 | 1 |
Gardner v. Stategreen1 sentence1997We recognize that in Gardner v. State, 702 P.2d 250, 251 (Alaska App.1985), this court interpreted the phrase “any subsequent pretrial hearing” in Criminal Rule 25(d)(5) as referring solely to pre-trial hearings that occur subsequent to the omnibus hearing. | 1 | 1 |
Surina v. Buckalewgreen1 sentence1991Surina v. Buckalew, 629 P.2d 969, 975 (Alaska 1981). | 1 | 1 |
Wainwright v. Sykesgreen2 sentences1987Wortham v. State, 689 P.2d 1133, 1136-39 (Alaska App.1984); but see Fox v. State, 685 P.2d 1267, 1268-71 (Alaska App.1984) (trial court’s refusal to consider the merits of pretrial motion filed after the omnibus hearing, but before the actual start of trial was an abuse of discretion); see also Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 84 , 97 S.Ct. 2497, 2505 , 53 L.Ed.2d 594 (1977); Davis v. United States, 411 U.S. 233, 242 , 93 S.Ct. 1577, 1582 , 36 L.Ed.2d 216 (1973); 1 Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure: Criminal 2d, § 192-93 (1982). 1987Wortham v. State, 689 P.2d 1133, 1136-39 (Alaska App.1984); but see Fox v. State, 685 P.2d 1267, 1268-71 (Alaska App.1984) (trial court’s refusal to consider the merits of pretrial motion filed after the omnibus hearing, but before the actual start of trial was an abuse of discretion); see also Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 84 , 97 S.Ct. 2497, 2505 , 53 L.Ed.2d 594 (1977); Davis v. United States, 411 U.S. 233, 242 , 93 S.Ct. 1577, 1582 , 36 L.Ed.2d 216 (1973); 1 Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure: Criminal 2d, § 192-93 (1982). | 1 | 1 |
Wortham v. Stategreen1 sentence1987Wortham v. State, 689 P.2d 1133, 1136-39 (Alaska App.1984); but see Fox v. State, 685 P.2d 1267, 1268-71 (Alaska App.1984) (trial court’s refusal to consider the merits of pretrial motion filed after the omnibus hearing, but before the actual start of trial was an abuse of discretion); see also Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 84 , 97 S.Ct. 2497, 2505 , 53 L.Ed.2d 594 (1977); Davis v. United States, 411 U.S. 233, 242 , 93 S.Ct. 1577, 1582 , 36 L.Ed.2d 216 (1973); 1 Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure: Criminal 2d, § 192-93 (1982). | 1 | 1 |
Dolchok v. Stategreen1 sentence1986See Dolchok, 639 P.2d at 285 n. 19 (discussing harmless error test appropriate to the resolution of this question). | 1 | 1 |
Ravin v. Stategreen1 sentence1984Ravin, 537 P.2d at 506, 509, 511 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Fox v. Stategreen2 sentences1987Wortham v. State, 689 P.2d 1133, 1136-39 (Alaska App.1984); but see Fox v. State, 685 P.2d 1267, 1268-71 (Alaska App.1984) (trial court’s refusal to consider the merits of pretrial motion filed after the omnibus hearing, but before the actual start of trial was an abuse of discretion); see also Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 84 , 97 S.Ct. 2497, 2505 , 53 L.Ed.2d 594 (1977); Davis v. United States, 411 U.S. 233, 242 , 93 S.Ct. 1577, 1582 , 36 L.Ed.2d 216 (1973); 1 Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure: Criminal 2d, § 192-93 (1982). 1984However, in Fox v. State, 685 P.2d 1267 (Alaska App.1984) we found that a trial judge abused his discretion in refusing to consider a suppression motion which was filed after the omnibus hearing was scheduled. | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Deacon v. State
green
2 sentences1993Id. at 1227 . 1993Id. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Pickens v. State
green
1 sentence1989Jonas’ counsel explained that either the evaluations or the interviews were needed to help in preparing to cross-examine the witnesses, because counsel lacked *963 experience “in questioning or dealing with mentally retarded people.” The state opposed the motion, arguing that Jonas had not established that psychiatric evaluations were necessary, as required under Pickens v. State, 675 P.2d 665 (Alaska App.1984). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Davis v. United States
green
2 sentences1987Wortham v. State, 689 P.2d 1133, 1136-39 (Alaska App.1984); but see Fox v. State, 685 P.2d 1267, 1268-71 (Alaska App.1984) (trial court’s refusal to consider the merits of pretrial motion filed after the omnibus hearing, but before the actual start of trial was an abuse of discretion); see also Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 84 , 97 S.Ct. 2497, 2505 , 53 L.Ed.2d 594 (1977); Davis v. United States, 411 U.S. 233, 242 , 93 S.Ct. 1577, 1582 , 36 L.Ed.2d 216 (1973); 1 Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure: Criminal 2d, § 192-93 (1982). 1987Wortham v. State, 689 P.2d 1133, 1136-39 (Alaska App.1984); but see Fox v. State, 685 P.2d 1267, 1268-71 (Alaska App.1984) (trial court’s refusal to consider the merits of pretrial motion filed after the omnibus hearing, but before the actual start of trial was an abuse of discretion); see also Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 84 , 97 S.Ct. 2497, 2505 , 53 L.Ed.2d 594 (1977); Davis v. United States, 411 U.S. 233, 242 , 93 S.Ct. 1577, 1582 , 36 L.Ed.2d 216 (1973); 1 Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure: Criminal 2d, § 192-93 (1982). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Davis v. Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Fourth Judicial District
green
1 sentence1986In Davis , the court specifically applied this rule to failure by an attorney to be prepared at an omnibus hearing, and held that the trial court, pursuant to Civil Rule 95(b), may impose a fine for an attorney’s violation of the “disciplinary rules applicable to attorneys.” 580 P.2d at 1179 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
DeMille v. State
green
2 sentences1985Id. at 677 n. 6. 1985Id. at 677 n. 6. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Lee v. State
green
2 sentences1982Criminal Rule 22(a) provides: At any time after the return of the indictment or the filing of the information the court upon motion of any party or upon its own motion may invite the attorneys to appear before it for a conference in open court, at which the defendant shall have the right to be present, to consider: (1) The simplification of the issues; (2) The possibility of obtaining admissions of fact and documents which will avoid unnecessary proof; (3) The number of expert witnesses or character witnesses or other witnesses who are to give testimony of a cumulative nature; (4) Such other m 1982Criminal Rule 22(a) provides: At any time after the return of the indictment or the filing of the information the court upon motion of any party or upon its own motion may invite the attorneys to appear before it for a conference in open court, at which the defendant shall have the right to be present, to consider: (1) The simplification of the issues; (2) The possibility of obtaining admissions of fact and documents which will avoid unnecessary proof; (3) The number of expert witnesses or character witnesses or other witnesses who are to give testimony of a cumulative nature; (4) Such other m | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Columbia Casualty Co. v. Hoohuli
green
2 sentences1979In Columbia Casualty Co. v. Hoohuli, 50 Haw. 212 , 437 P.2d 99 , 103 n. 2 (1968), the court stated: The purpose of expanded insurance coverage through statutory imposition of the omnibus clause is to avoid the loss to innocent parties injured at the hands of otherwise uninsured drivers. 1979In Columbia Casualty Co. v. Hoohuli, 50 Haw. 212 , 437 P.2d 99 , 103 n. 2 (1968), the court stated: The purpose of expanded insurance coverage through statutory imposition of the omnibus clause is to avoid the loss to innocent parties injured at the hands of otherwise uninsured drivers. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Peterson v. State
green
1 sentence1978We also think it significant that approximately one month after the in-court trial date setting was announced, an omnibus hearing was held before Superior Court Judge Mark Rowland; and at that hearing, DeMille’s counsel made no motions or objections concerning the March 20, 1978, trial date setting. 7 .The issue of prejudice was introduced in Peterson v. State, 562 P.2d 1350 (Alaska 1977). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Gen. Ins. Co. v. Sask. Gov. Ins. Office
neutral
2 sentences1970General Insurance Co. v. Saskatchewan Government Insurance Office, 238 Or. 8 , 391 P.2d 616 (1964). 1970General Insurance Co. v. Saskatchewan Government Insurance Office, 238 Or. 8 , 391 P.2d 616 (1964). | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.