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 1995–2023 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Native Village of Nunapitchukgreen2 sentences2013For example, in State v. Native Village of Nunapitchuk, we held that the public interest litigant exception to Alaska Civil Rule 82, which shields losing public interest litigants from adverse awards of attorney’s fees, is substantive law.41 In Ware v. City of Anchorage, we stated that “substantive law creates, defines and regulates rights, while procedural law prescribes the method of enforcing rights.”42 In Nolan v. Sea Airmotive, Inc., we added to the Ware test, requiring courts 41 156 P.3d 389, 403-04 (Alaska 2007). 42 Id. at 396 (quoting Ware v. City of Anchorage, 439 P.2d 793, 794 (Alask 2013For example, in State v. Native Village of Nunapitchuk, we held that the public interest litigant exception to Alaska Civil Rule 82, which shields losing public interest litigants from adverse awards of attorney’s fees, is substantive law.41 In Ware v. City of Anchorage, we stated that “substantive law creates, defines and regulates rights, while procedural law prescribes the method of enforcing rights.”42 In Nolan v. Sea Airmotive, Inc., we added to the Ware test, requiring courts 41 156 P.3d 389, 403-04 (Alaska 2007). 42 Id. at 396 (quoting Ware v. City of Anchorage, 439 P.2d 793, 794 (Alask | 3 | 5 |
Ware v. City of Anchoragegreen2 sentences2013For example, in State v. Native Village of Nunapitchuk, we held that the public interest litigant exception to Alaska Civil Rule 82, which shields losing public interest litigants from adverse awards of attorney’s fees, is substantive law.41 In Ware v. City of Anchorage, we stated that “substantive law creates, defines and regulates rights, while procedural law prescribes the method of enforcing rights.”42 In Nolan v. Sea Airmotive, Inc., we added to the Ware test, requiring courts 41 156 P.3d 389, 403-04 (Alaska 2007). 42 Id. at 396 (quoting Ware v. City of Anchorage, 439 P.2d 793, 794 (Alask 2013For example, in State v. Native Village of Nunapitchuk, we held that the public interest litigant exception to Alaska Civil Rule 82, which shields losing public interest litigants from adverse awards of attorney’s fees, is substantive law.41 In Ware v. City of Anchorage, we stated that “substantive law creates, defines and regulates rights, while procedural law prescribes the method of enforcing rights.”42 In Nolan v. Sea Airmotive, Inc., we added to the Ware test, requiring courts to 41 156 P.3d 389, 403-04 (Alaska 2007). 42 Id. at 396 (quoting Ware v. City of Anchorage, 439 P.2d 793, 794 (Al | 2 | 2 |
Municipality of Anchorage v. Gentilegreen2 sentences2009Ch. 86, SLA 2003, overruled Thomas in part by abrogating the public interest litigant doctrine, but the discussion in Thomas relating to calculating full reasonable attorney's fees remains valid in the context of fee awards for constitutional claims. [47] Gentile, 922 P.2d at 264-65 ; State, Dep't Health & Soc. 2009Servs. v. Okuley, 214 P.3d 247 , 250 n. 10 (Alaska 2009); see also Era Aviation, Inc. v. Lindfors, 17 P.3d 40, 51 (Alaska 2000) ("This court has affirmed lodestar or risk-enhanced fees only in exceptional circumstances, when there was a strong public interest involved, or the attorneys stood to receive no compensation other than the fees granted by the court.") (citing Gentile, 922 P.2d at 265 (consideration of risk-enhanced fees in class action); Wise Mech. | 1 | 2 |
Fairbanks North Star Borough v. Interior Cabaret, Hotel, Restaurant & Retailers Ass'ngreen2 sentences2023And unlike ICHRRA’s relatively uniform membership, the Trade Associations’ memberships “consist of a broad constituency of individuals, organizations, and companies, the vast majority of which would not be directly impacted by a tax on oil 56 137 P.3d 289 (Alaska 2006). 57 Id. at 291. 58 Id. at 290. 59 Id. at 292-94. 60 Id. at 292. -17- 7674 production.”61 The economic interests of an organization’s members and directors are relevant to assessing the primary motivation of litigation.62 But here, the economic interest asserted is that some of the Trade Associations’ members are oil and gas prod 2023And unlike ICHRRA’s relatively uniform membership, the Trade Associations’ memberships “consist of a broad constituency of individuals, organizations, and companies, the vast majority of which would not be directly impacted by a tax on oil 56 137 P.3d 289 (Alaska 2006). 57 Id. at 291. 58 Id. at 290. 59 Id. at 292-94. 60 Id. at 292. -17- 7674 production.”61 The economic interests of an organization’s members and directors are relevant to assessing the primary motivation of litigation.62 But here, the economic interest asserted is that some of the Trade Associations’ members are oil and gas prod | 1 | 1 |
Alaska Conservation Foundation v. Pebble Limited Partnershipgreen1 sentence2019P'ship , 350 P.3d 273 , 274 (Alaska 2015) ("Alaska Statute 09.60.010 was enacted to abrogate our previous common law public interest litigation attorney's fees framework and replace it with a narrower constitutional litigation framework."). | 1 | 1 |
Lake & Peninsula Borough Assembly v. Oberlatzgreen1 sentence2018But in 2003 the Alaska Legislature replaced the public interest litigant exception with AS 09.60.010,30 which instructs that, except as otherwise provided by statute, a court “may not discriminate in the award of attorney fees and costs to or against a party in a civil action or appeal based on the nature of the policy or interest advocated by the party.”31 28 Id. at 539 (alteration in original) (quoting Lake & Peninsula Borough Assembly v. Oberlatz, 329 P.3d 214, 228 (Alaska 2014)). 29 The State claimed $406.51 for the July 13 item and $93.81 for the November 20 item. | 1 | 1 |
City of Kenai v. Friends of the Recreation Center, Inc.green1 sentence2009Id. [26] Id. at 406 . [27] Id. at 392 . [28] 129 P.3d 452, 460 (Alaska 2006) (quoting Se. | 1 | 1 |
Era Aviation, Inc. v. Lindforsgreen1 sentence2009Servs. v. Okuley, 214 P.3d 247 , 250 n. 10 (Alaska 2009); see also Era Aviation, Inc. v. Lindfors, 17 P.3d 40, 51 (Alaska 2000) ("This court has affirmed lodestar or risk-enhanced fees only in exceptional circumstances, when there was a strong public interest involved, or the attorneys stood to receive no compensation other than the fees granted by the court.") (citing Gentile, 922 P.2d at 265 (consideration of risk-enhanced fees in class action); Wise Mech. | 1 | 1 |
Abbott v. Kodiak Island Borough Assembly as the Assemblygreen1 sentence2007Abbott v. Kodiak Island Borough Assembly, 899 P.2d 922, 923 (Alaska 1995). 49 . | 1 | 1 |
Loeb v. Rasmussengreen2 sentences1995This concern is addressed in the final prong of the public interest litigant test. [10] See also Johnson v. Tait, 774 P.2d 185, 190 (Alaska 1989) (suit to enjoin the arguable infringement of free speech effectuates strong public policies); Oceanview Homeowners Ass'n, 680 P.2d at 799 ("Oceanview's appeal was designed to vindicate a strong public policy in effectuating zoning ordinances"); cf. Loeb v. Rasmussen, 822 P.2d 914 , 921 n. 18 (Alaska 1991) ("[T]he case was a simple negligence action against an alleged tortfeasor. 1995See also Johnson v. Tait, 774 P.2d 185, 190 (Alaska 1989) (suit to enjoin the arguable infringement of free speech effectuates strong public policies); Oceanview Homeowners Ass’n, 680 P.2d at 799 (“Oceanview's appeal was designed to vindicate a strong public policy in effectuating zoning ordinances”); cf. Loeb v. Rasmussen, 822 P.2d 914 , 921 n. 18 (Alaska 1991) ("[Tlhe case was a simple negligence action against an alleged tortfeasor. | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Taitgreen2 sentences1995This concern is addressed in the final prong of the public interest litigant test. [10] See also Johnson v. Tait, 774 P.2d 185, 190 (Alaska 1989) (suit to enjoin the arguable infringement of free speech effectuates strong public policies); Oceanview Homeowners Ass'n, 680 P.2d at 799 ("Oceanview's appeal was designed to vindicate a strong public policy in effectuating zoning ordinances"); cf. Loeb v. Rasmussen, 822 P.2d 914 , 921 n. 18 (Alaska 1991) ("[T]he case was a simple negligence action against an alleged tortfeasor. 1995See also Johnson v. Tait, 774 P.2d 185, 190 (Alaska 1989) (suit to enjoin the arguable infringement of free speech effectuates strong public policies); Oceanview Homeowners Ass’n, 680 P.2d at 799 (“Oceanview's appeal was designed to vindicate a strong public policy in effectuating zoning ordinances”); cf. Loeb v. Rasmussen, 822 P.2d 914 , 921 n. 18 (Alaska 1991) ("[Tlhe case was a simple negligence action against an alleged tortfeasor. | 1 | 1 |
Oceanview Homeowners Ass'n v. Quadrant Construction & Engineeringgreen2 sentences1995This concern is addressed in the final prong of the public interest litigant test. [10] See also Johnson v. Tait, 774 P.2d 185, 190 (Alaska 1989) (suit to enjoin the arguable infringement of free speech effectuates strong public policies); Oceanview Homeowners Ass'n, 680 P.2d at 799 ("Oceanview's appeal was designed to vindicate a strong public policy in effectuating zoning ordinances"); cf. Loeb v. Rasmussen, 822 P.2d 914 , 921 n. 18 (Alaska 1991) ("[T]he case was a simple negligence action against an alleged tortfeasor. 1995See also Johnson v. Tait, 774 P.2d 185, 190 (Alaska 1989) (suit to enjoin the arguable infringement of free speech effectuates strong public policies); Oceanview Homeowners Ass’n, 680 P.2d at 799 (“Oceanview's appeal was designed to vindicate a strong public policy in effectuating zoning ordinances”); cf. Loeb v. Rasmussen, 822 P.2d 914 , 921 n. 18 (Alaska 1991) ("[Tlhe case was a simple negligence action against an alleged tortfeasor. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alaska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, Inc. v. State
green
2 sentences1995In Southeast Alaska Conservation Council we held that the existence of governmental authority to act was not determinative of this prong of the public interest litigant test. 665 P.2d at 554 . 1995In Southeast Alaska Conservation Council we held that the existence of governmental authority to act was not determinative of this prong of the public interest litigant test. 665 P.2d at 554 . | 2 | 1995–2007 |
State, Department of Health & Social Services v. Okuley
green
1 sentence2009Servs. v. Okuley, 214 P.3d 247 , 250 n. 10 (Alaska 2009); see also Era Aviation, Inc. v. Lindfors, 17 P.3d 40, 51 (Alaska 2000) ("This court has affirmed lodestar or risk-enhanced fees only in exceptional circumstances, when there was a strong public interest involved, or the attorneys stood to receive no compensation other than the fees granted by the court.") (citing Gentile, 922 P.2d at 265 (consideration of risk-enhanced fees in class action); Wise Mech. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Thomas v. Bailey
green
1 sentence2007It is the intent of the legislature to expressly overrule the decisions of the Alaska Supreme Court in Dansereau v. Ulmer, 955 P.2d 916 (Alaska 1998); Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, Inc. v. State, 665 P.2d 544 (Alaska 1983); Thomas v. Bailey, 611 P.2d 536 (Alaska 1980); Anchorage v. McCabe, 568 P.2d 986 (Alaska 1977); Gilbert v. State, 526 P.2d 1131 (Alaska 1974), and their progeny, insofar as they relate to the award of attorney fees and costs to or against public interest litigants in future civil actions and appeals. (c) This Act does not preclude the enactment of specific statutes | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Dansereau v. Ulmer
green
1 sentence2007It is the intent of the legislature to expressly overrule the decisions of the Alaska Supreme Court in Dansereau v. Ulmer, 955 P.2d 916 (Alaska 1998); Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, Inc. v. State, 665 P.2d 544 (Alaska 1983); Thomas v. Bailey, 611 P.2d 536 (Alaska 1980); Anchorage v. McCabe, 568 P.2d 986 (Alaska 1977); Gilbert v. State, 526 P.2d 1131 (Alaska 1974), and their progeny, insofar as they relate to the award of attorney fees and costs to or against public interest litigants in future civil actions and appeals. (c) This Act does not preclude the enactment of specific statutes | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Anchorage v. McCabe
green
2 sentences2007It is the intent of the legislature to expressly overrule the decisions of the Alaska Supreme Court in Dansereau v. Ulmer, 955 P.2d 916 (Alaska 1998); Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, Inc. v. State, 665 P.2d 544 (Alaska 1983); Thomas v. Bailey, 611 P.2d 536 (Alaska 1980); Anchorage v. McCabe, 568 P.2d 986 (Alaska 1977); Gilbert v. State, 526 P.2d 1131 (Alaska 1974), and their progeny, insofar as they relate to the award of attorney fees and costs to or against public interest litigants in future civil actions and appeals. (c) This Act does not preclude the enactment of specific statutes 2007The public interest litigant exception operates both affirmatively and protectively: affirmatively, in that when a public interest litigant prevails it is entitled to an award of full atiorney's fees, Anchorage v. McCabe, 568 P.2d 986 (Alaska 1977), and protectively, in that when a public interest litigant is on the losing side of litigation no attorney's fees may be assessed against it. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Gilbert v. State
green
2 sentences2007It is the intent of the legislature to expressly overrule the decisions of the Alaska Supreme Court in Dansereau v. Ulmer, 955 P.2d 916 (Alaska 1998); Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, Inc. v. State, 665 P.2d 544 (Alaska 1983); Thomas v. Bailey, 611 P.2d 536 (Alaska 1980); Anchorage v. McCabe, 568 P.2d 986 (Alaska 1977); Gilbert v. State, 526 P.2d 1131 (Alaska 1974), and their progeny, insofar as they relate to the award of attorney fees and costs to or against public interest litigants in future civil actions and appeals. (c) This Act does not preclude the enactment of specific statutes 2007Gilbert v. State, 526 P.2d 1131 (Alaska 1974). 3 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.