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.
11 Alaska opinions name it 1 courts 1964–2001 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 |
|---|---|---|
G & a CONTRACTORS, INC. v. Alaska Greenhouses, Inc.green2 sentences1992Our decision to afford the parties an opportunity to obtain an initial decision from the Social Security Agency rests upon application of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. 18 As noted by Professor Davis: Primary jurisdiction is a doctrine of common law, wholly court-made, that is designed to guide a court in determining whether and when it should refrain from or postpone the exercise of its own jurisdiction so that an agency may first answer some question presented. 19 G & A Contractors, Inc. v. Greenhouse, Inc., 517 P.2d 1379, 1382, 1383 (Alaska 1974) contains the following discussion of 1992Our decision to afford the parties an opportunity to obtain an initial decision from the Social Security Agency rests upon application of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. [18] As noted by Professor Davis: Primary jurisdiction is a doctrine of common law, wholly court-made, that is designed to guide a court in determining whether and when it should refrain from or postpone the exercise of its own jurisdiction so that an agency may first answer some question presented. [19] G & A Contractors, Inc. v. Greenhouse, Inc., 517 P.2d 1379, 1382, 1383 (Alaska 1974) contains the following discussion | 2 | 2 |
Bauman v. Daygreen1 sentence1996Bauman v. Day, 892 P.2d 817, 828-29 (Alaska 1995). | 1 | 1 |
Americana Fabrics, Inc. v. L & L Textiles, Inc.green1 sentence1994DISCUSSION The doctrine of collateral estoppel, also referred to as issue preclusion, “bars relitigation, even in an action on a different claim, of all ‘issues of fact or law that were actually litigated and necessarily decided’ in [a] prior proceeding.” Americana Fabrics v. L & L Textiles, 754 F.2d 1524, 1529 (9th Cir.1985) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Ripley v. Stategreen1 sentence1980See also Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492 , 97 S.Ct. 711 , 50 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977) ( per curiam ). [38] We have previously referred to this exception in two cases involving violent crimes: Ripley v. State, 590 P.2d 48, 50 (Alaska 1979), and Pope v. State, 478 P.2d 801, 804 (Alaska 1970). | 1 | 1 |
Hunter v. Stategreen2 sentences1980See Hunter v. State, 590 P.2d 888 (Alaska 1979), for a discussion of the test for custodial interrogation. 1980Lowe v. United States, 407 F.2d 1391, 1397 (9th Cir.1969). [37] See Hunter v. State, 590 P.2d 888 (Alaska 1979), for a discussion of the test for custodial interrogation. | 1 | 1 |
Arnold Lowe v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1980Lowe v. United States, 407 F.2d 1391, 1397 (9th Cir.1969). [37] See Hunter v. State, 590 P.2d 888 (Alaska 1979), for a discussion of the test for custodial interrogation. | 1 | 1 |
Pope v. Stategreen1 sentence1980See also Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492 , 97 S.Ct. 711 , 50 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977) ( per curiam ). [38] We have previously referred to this exception in two cases involving violent crimes: Ripley v. State, 590 P.2d 48, 50 (Alaska 1979), and Pope v. State, 478 P.2d 801, 804 (Alaska 1970). | 1 | 1 |
Oregon v. Mathiasongreen2 sentences1980See also Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492 , 97 S.Ct. 711 , 50 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977) (per curiam). . 1980See also Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492 , 97 S.Ct. 711 , 50 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977) (per curiam). . | 1 | 1 |
Judd v. Stategreen2 sentences1979For a discussion of the factors which we consider in deciding the retroactive effect, if any, of a decision by this court, see Gordon v. State, 577 P.2d 701, 705-06 (Alaska 1978); Lauderdale v. State, 548 P.2d 376, 382-84 (Alaska 1976); Rutherford v. State, 486 P.2d 946, 952-59 (Alaska 1971); Judd v. State, 482 P.2d 273, 277-79 (Alaska 1971); Gray v. State, 463 P.2d 897, 913 (Alaska 1970). 1979For a discussion of the factors which we consider in deciding the retroactive effect, if any, of a decision by this court, see Gordon v. State, 577 P.2d 701, 705-06 (Alaska 1978); Lauderdale v. State, 548 P.2d 376, 382-84 (Alaska 1976); Rutherford v. State, 486 P.2d 946, 952-59 (Alaska 1971); Judd v. State, 482 P.2d 273, 277-79 (Alaska 1971); Gray v. State, 463 P.2d 897, 913 (Alaska 1970). | 1 | 1 |
Gray v. Stategreen2 sentences1979For a discussion of the factors which we consider in deciding the retroactive effect, if any, of a decision by this court, see Gordon v. State, 577 P.2d 701, 705-06 (Alaska 1978); Lauderdale v. State, 548 P.2d 376, 382-84 (Alaska 1976); Rutherford v. State, 486 P.2d 946, 952-59 (Alaska 1971); Judd v. State, 482 P.2d 273, 277-79 (Alaska 1971); Gray v. State, 463 P.2d 897, 913 (Alaska 1970). 1979For a discussion of the factors which we consider in deciding the retroactive effect, if any, of a decision by this court, see Gordon v. State, 577 P.2d 701, 705-06 (Alaska 1978); Lauderdale v. State, 548 P.2d 376, 382-84 (Alaska 1976); Rutherford v. State, 486 P.2d 946, 952-59 (Alaska 1971); Judd v. State, 482 P.2d 273, 277-79 (Alaska 1971); Gray v. State, 463 P.2d 897, 913 (Alaska 1970). | 1 | 1 |
Lauderdale v. Stategreen2 sentences1979For a discussion of the factors which we consider in deciding the retroactive effect, if any, of a decision by this court, see Gordon v. State, 577 P.2d 701, 705-06 (Alaska 1978); Lauderdale v. State, 548 P.2d 376, 382-84 (Alaska 1976); Rutherford v. State, 486 P.2d 946, 952-59 (Alaska 1971); Judd v. State, 482 P.2d 273, 277-79 (Alaska 1971); Gray v. State, 463 P.2d 897, 913 (Alaska 1970). 1979For a discussion of the factors which we consider in deciding the retroactive effect, if any, of a decision by this court, see Gordon v. State, 577 P.2d 701, 705-06 (Alaska 1978); Lauderdale v. State, 548 P.2d 376, 382-84 (Alaska 1976); Rutherford v. State, 486 P.2d 946, 952-59 (Alaska 1971); Judd v. State, 482 P.2d 273, 277-79 (Alaska 1971); Gray v. State, 463 P.2d 897, 913 (Alaska 1970). | 1 | 1 |
Gordon v. Stategreen2 sentences1979For a discussion of the factors which we consider in deciding the retroactive effect, if any, of a decision by this court, see Gordon v. State, 577 P.2d 701, 705-06 (Alaska 1978); Lauderdale v. State, 548 P.2d 376, 382-84 (Alaska 1976); Rutherford v. State, 486 P.2d 946, 952-59 (Alaska 1971); Judd v. State, 482 P.2d 273, 277-79 (Alaska 1971); Gray v. State, 463 P.2d 897, 913 (Alaska 1970). 1979For a discussion of the factors which we consider in deciding the retroactive effect, if any, of a decision by this court, see Gordon v. State, 577 P.2d 701, 705-06 (Alaska 1978); Lauderdale v. State, 548 P.2d 376, 382-84 (Alaska 1976); Rutherford v. State, 486 P.2d 946, 952-59 (Alaska 1971); Judd v. State, 482 P.2d 273, 277-79 (Alaska 1971); Gray v. State, 463 P.2d 897, 913 (Alaska 1970). | 1 | 1 |
Rutherford v. Stategreen2 sentences1979For a discussion of the factors which we consider in deciding the retroactive effect, if any, of a decision by this court, see Gordon v. State, 577 P.2d 701, 705-06 (Alaska 1978); Lauderdale v. State, 548 P.2d 376, 382-84 (Alaska 1976); Rutherford v. State, 486 P.2d 946, 952-59 (Alaska 1971); Judd v. State, 482 P.2d 273, 277-79 (Alaska 1971); Gray v. State, 463 P.2d 897, 913 (Alaska 1970). 1979For a discussion of the factors which we consider in deciding the retroactive effect, if any, of a decision by this court, see Gordon v. State, 577 P.2d 701, 705-06 (Alaska 1978); Lauderdale v. State, 548 P.2d 376, 382-84 (Alaska 1976); Rutherford v. State, 486 P.2d 946, 952-59 (Alaska 1971); Judd v. State, 482 P.2d 273, 277-79 (Alaska 1971); Gray v. State, 463 P.2d 897, 913 (Alaska 1970). | 1 | 1 |
Bakken v. Stategreen1 sentence1975See Bakken v. State, 489 P.2d 120, 127 (Alaska 1971), Erwin, J., dissenting, for a discussion of the doctrine of plain error. 15 . | 1 | 1 |
Ferguson v. Stategreen1 sentence1975Ferguson v. State, 488 P.2d 1032, 1038 (Alaska 1971). 16 . | 1 | 1 |
Straus v. Kazemekasgreen2 sentences1964For a full discussion of the doctrine see 6 Williston, Contracts §§ 1931-79 (rev. ed. 1938). 8 . 6 Williston, op. cit. supra note 7, at 5511, citing Straus v. Kazemekas, 100 Conn. 581 , 124 A. 234, 239 (1924). 9 . 1964For a full discussion of the doctrine see 6 Williston, Contracts §§ 1931-79 (rev. ed. 1938). 8 . 6 Williston, op. cit. supra note 7, at 5511, citing Straus v. Kazemekas, 100 Conn. 581 , 124 A. 234, 239 (1924). 9 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alaska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sterling v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services
green
2 sentences2001For a discussion of the principle that a telephonic hearing is not a per se due process violation but may be a violation in a particular case, see Sterling v. District of Columbia Dep't of Employment Servs., 513 A.2d 253 , 255 & n. 2 (D.C.App.1986) (holding telephonic unemployment compensation hearing did not per se violate due process but did violate due process where hearing officer did not mention reason for his call and hung up on party's receptionist). [3] See Amerada Hess Pipeline Corp. v. Alaska Pub. 2001For a discussion of the principle that a telephonic hearing is not a per se due process violation but may be a violation in a particular case, see Sterling v. District of Columbia Dep't of Employment Servs., 513 A2d 253 , 255 & n. 2 (D.C.App.1986) (holding telephonic unemployment compensation hearing did not per se violate due process but did violate due process where hearing officer did not mention reason for his call and hung up on party's receptionist). . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Guin v. Ha
green
2 sentences1994On questions of law, our “duty is to adopt the rule of law that is most persuasive in light of precedent, reason, and policy.” Guin v. Ha, 591 P.2d 1281 , 1284 n. 6 (Alaska 1979). 1994On questions of law, our "duty is to adopt the rule of law that is most persuasive in light of precedent, reason, and policy." Guin v. Ha, 591 P.2d 1281 , 1284 n. 6 (Alaska 1979). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore
green
2 sentences1994The doctrine serves “the dual purpose of protecting litigants from the burden of relitigating an identical issue with the same party or his privy and of promoting judicial economy by preventing needless litigation.” Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 326 , 99 S.Ct. 645, 649 , 58 L.Ed.2d 552 (1979). 1994The doctrine serves “the dual purpose of protecting litigants from the burden of relitigating an identical issue with the same party or his privy and of promoting judicial economy by preventing needless litigation.” Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 326 , 99 S.Ct. 645, 649 , 58 L.Ed.2d 552 (1979). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Stewart & Grindle, Inc. v. State
green
1 sentence1979A more persuasive interpretation consistent with the language of the rule and with this court’s discussion of that rule in Stewart & Grindle [ 524 P.2d 1242 (Alaska 1974)], is also available. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Fleischman v. Rahmstorf
neutral
1 sentence1964Fleischman v. Rahmstorf, 226 F. 443 (9th Cir. 1915); Restatement, Contracts § 339 (1932). 10 . | 1 | 1964–1964 |
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.