given instruction in Alaska

1993See also Brown v. Estate of Jonz, 591 P.2d 532, 534 (Alaska 1979) (even under a “less stringent view of Rule 51(a) ... counsel should make a specific objection to a given instruction” so the trial court has an opportunity to rule on the party’s position).

1993See also Brown v. Estate of Jonz, 591 P.2d 532, 534 (Alaska 1979) (even under a "less stringent view of Rule 51(a) ... counsel should make a specific objection to a given instruction" so the trial court has an opportunity to rule on the party's position).

2019See Neder v. United States , 527 U.S. 1 , 16-17, 119 S.Ct. 1827 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999) (noting that "Neder did not argue to the jury - and does not argue here - that his false statements of income could be found immaterial"); see also Neder , 527 U.S. at 34 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 (Scalia, J., dissenting) ("The amount of evidence against a defendant who has properly preserved his objection, while relevant to determining whether a given error was harmless, has nothing to do with determining whether the error is subject to harmless-error review in the first place.").

2019See Neder v. United States , 527 U.S. 1 , 16-17, 119 S.Ct. 1827 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999) (noting that "Neder did not argue to the jury - and does not argue here - that his false statements of income could be found immaterial"); see also Neder , 527 U.S. at 34 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 (Scalia, J., dissenting) ("The amount of evidence against a defendant who has properly preserved his objection, while relevant to determining whether a given error was harmless, has nothing to do with determining whether the error is subject to harmless-error review in the first place.").

2003Sever v. Alaska Pulp Corp., 931 P.2d 354, 362 (Alaska 1996); see also Conam Alaska, 842 P.2d at 153 (noting "the policy underlying Rule 51(a) that counsel should make a specific objection to a given instruction, even if he has previously argued his position to the court.

1997As a result, any duty which One Call owed Manes fell short of the duties of recognized travel agents in the noted cases. 4 . "[C]ounsel should make a specific objection to a given instruction'' in order to provide the trial court with "an identifiable opportunity to rule on a party’s position.” Conam Alaska, 842 P.2d at 153 (citation omitted).

2003Sever v. Alaska Pulp Corp., 931 P.2d 354, 362 (Alaska 1996); see also Conam Alaska, 842 P.2d at 153 (noting "the policy underlying Rule 51(a) that counsel should make a specific objection to a given instruction, even if he has previously argued his position to the court.

1997Id. at 457-58, 114 S.Ct. at 990 (Souter, J., concurring).

1985See Van Cleve v. State, 649 P.2d 972, 976 (Alaska App.1982).

1981In State v. Guinn, 555 P.2d 530, 538 (Alaska 1976), we stated that to satisfy proximate cause it is not necessary that the actor’s conduct be “the” cause, but rather that “[i]t is only necessary that such conduct be ‘a’ legal cause.” Again, the given instruction adequately conveyed this concept.

1972Goldstein, Reflections on Developing Trends in the Law of Student Rights, supra note 19, at 617 (emphasis added). [58] See, e.g., King v. Saddleback Junior College Dist., 445 F.2d 932, 935 (9th Cir.1971). [59] We agree that courts should not be too quick to interfere with the functions of other public agencies, such as school boards.