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.
10 Alaska opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2012 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 |
|---|---|---|
Whitesides v. State, Department of Public Safety, Division of Motor Vehiclesgreen2 sentences2011In Whitesides , we concluded that the burden to the State in conducting an in-person hearing in those circumstances was low in part because "hearing officers can limit their travel to times when they have several cases for hearing." 20 P.3d at 1138 . [20] Brandal, 128 P.3d at 740 . [21] Alvarez also argues that "the hearing officer's unilateral decision to postpone matters another year until her return from maternity leave . . . was also arbitrary [and] capricious." But from the record it does not appear that the hearing officer's maternity leave affected the delay. 2008Safety, Div. of Motor Vehicles, 20 P.3d 1130, 1139 (Alaska 2001) (holding that when credibility of party is in issue at license revocation hearing, an in-person hearing is required). [18] Richard B., 71 P.3d at 829-30 (emphasis in original). [19] Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334-35 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976), cited in Richard B., 71 P.3d at 831 . [20] Richard B., 71 P.3d at 829 (quoting Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335 , 96 S.Ct. 893 ). [21] J.M.R. v. S.T.R., 15 P.3d 253, 257 (Alaska 2001). [22] Flores v. Flores, 598 P.2d 893, 895 (Alaska 1979). [23] Richard B., 71 P.3d at 831 . [24] | 4 | 6 |
Richard B. v. State, Department of Health & Social Services, Division of Family & Youth Servicesgreen2 sentences2008Safety, Div. of Motor Vehicles, 20 P.3d 1130, 1139 (Alaska 2001) (holding that when credibility of party is in issue at license revocation hearing, an in-person hearing is required). [18] Richard B., 71 P.3d at 829-30 (emphasis in original). [19] Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334-35 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976), cited in Richard B., 71 P.3d at 831 . [20] Richard B., 71 P.3d at 829 (quoting Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335 , 96 S.Ct. 893 ). [21] J.M.R. v. S.T.R., 15 P.3d 253, 257 (Alaska 2001). [22] Flores v. Flores, 598 P.2d 893, 895 (Alaska 1979). [23] Richard B., 71 P.3d at 831 . [24] 2008Safety, Div. of Motor Vehicles, 20 P.3d 1130, 1139 (Alaska 2001) (holding that when credibility of party is in issue at license revocation hearing, an in-person hearing is required). [18] Richard B., 71 P.3d at 829-30 (emphasis in original). [19] Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334-35 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976), cited in Richard B., 71 P.3d at 831 . [20] Richard B., 71 P.3d at 829 (quoting Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335 , 96 S.Ct. 893 ). [21] J.M.R. v. S.T.R., 15 P.3d 253, 257 (Alaska 2001). [22] Flores v. Flores, 598 P.2d 893, 895 (Alaska 1979). [23] Richard B., 71 P.3d at 831 . [24] | 1 | 2 |
Jmr v. Strgreen1 sentence2008Safety, Div. of Motor Vehicles, 20 P.3d 1130, 1139 (Alaska 2001) (holding that when credibility of party is in issue at license revocation hearing, an in-person hearing is required). [18] Richard B., 71 P.3d at 829-30 (emphasis in original). [19] Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334-35 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976), cited in Richard B., 71 P.3d at 831 . [20] Richard B., 71 P.3d at 829 (quoting Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335 , 96 S.Ct. 893 ). [21] J.M.R. v. S.T.R., 15 P.3d 253, 257 (Alaska 2001). [22] Flores v. Flores, 598 P.2d 893, 895 (Alaska 1979). [23] Richard B., 71 P.3d at 831 . [24] | 1 | 1 |
Flores v. Floresgreen1 sentence2008Safety, Div. of Motor Vehicles, 20 P.3d 1130, 1139 (Alaska 2001) (holding that when credibility of party is in issue at license revocation hearing, an in-person hearing is required). [18] Richard B., 71 P.3d at 829-30 (emphasis in original). [19] Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334-35 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976), cited in Richard B., 71 P.3d at 831 . [20] Richard B., 71 P.3d at 829 (quoting Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335 , 96 S.Ct. 893 ). [21] J.M.R. v. S.T.R., 15 P.3d 253, 257 (Alaska 2001). [22] Flores v. Flores, 598 P.2d 893, 895 (Alaska 1979). [23] Richard B., 71 P.3d at 831 . [24] | 1 | 1 |
Barcott v. State, Department of Public Safetygreen2 sentences2007Safety, Div. of Motor Vehicles, 741 P.2d 226, 228 (Alaska 1987) (citing Champion, 721 P.2d at 133 ); see also Whitesides, 20 P.3d at 1135-36, 1138-39 (noting that DMV must permit the accused to test the reliability of evidence and may not consider evidence obtained in violation of the right to counsel, and holding that an in-person hearing must be provided on request where the credibility of a party is at issue). [37] Thorne, 774 P.2d at 1330 (holding that the State's failure to preserve a videotape of field sobriety tests taken an hour after a DWI arrest violated the driver's right to due pro 2007Safety, Div. of Motor Vehicles, 741 P.2d 226, 228 (Alaska 1987) (citing Champion, 721 P.2d at 133 ); see also Whitesides, 20 P.3d at 1135-36, 1138-39 (noting that DMV must permit the accused to test the reliability of evidence and may not consider evidence obtained in violation of the right to counsel, and holding that an in-person hearing must be provided on request where the credibility of a party is at issue). . | 1 | 1 |
Thorne v. Department of Public Safetygreen2 sentences2007Safety, Div. of Motor Vehicles, 741 P.2d 226, 228 (Alaska 1987) (citing Champion, 721 P.2d at 133 ); see also Whitesides, 20 P.3d at 1135-36, 1138-39 (noting that DMV must permit the accused to test the reliability of evidence and may not consider evidence obtained in violation of the right to counsel, and holding that an in-person hearing must be provided on request where the credibility of a party is at issue). [37] Thorne, 774 P.2d at 1330 (holding that the State's failure to preserve a videotape of field sobriety tests taken an hour after a DWI arrest violated the driver's right to due pro 2007Thorne, 774 P.2d at 1330 (holding that the State's failure to preserve a videotape of field sobriety tests taken an hour after a DWI arrest violated the driver's right to due process in a license revocation hearing); see also Snyder v. State (Snyder I), 930 P.2d 1274, 1282 (Alaska 1996) (noting, in the context of a criminal prosecution for driving while intoxicated, that "[i]t is a fundamental tenet of due process of law that a person accused of a crime has a right to attempt to obtain exculpatory evidence. | 1 | 1 |
Snyder v. Stategreen2 sentences2007Safety, Div. of Motor Vehicles, 741 P.2d 226, 228 (Alaska 1987) (citing Champion, 721 P.2d at 133 ); see also Whitesides, 20 P.3d at 1135-36, 1138-39 (noting that DMV must permit the accused to test the reliability of evidence and may not consider evidence obtained in violation of the right to counsel, and holding that an in-person hearing must be provided on request where the credibility of a party is at issue). [37] Thorne, 774 P.2d at 1330 (holding that the State's failure to preserve a videotape of field sobriety tests taken an hour after a DWI arrest violated the driver's right to due pro 2007Thorne, 774 P.2d at 1330 (holding that the State's failure to preserve a videotape of field sobriety tests taken an hour after a DWI arrest violated the driver's right to due process in a license revocation hearing); see also Snyder v. State (Snyder I), 930 P.2d 1274, 1282 (Alaska 1996) (noting, in the context of a criminal prosecution for driving while intoxicated, that "[i]t is a fundamental tenet of due process of law that a person accused of a crime has a right to attempt to obtain exculpatory evidence. | 1 | 1 |
Casey v. O'BANNONgreen1 sentence2001See Casey v. O'Bannon, 536 F.Supp. 350, 353-54 (E.D.Pa.1982) (holding that telephonic welfare benefits hearing withstood Mathews due process analysis); State ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
Roman v. Stategreen1 sentence1991Staael argues that Roman v. State, 570 P.2d 1235, 1244 (Alaska 1977) requires the Parole Board to offer Staael a hearing before any condition of parole can be imposed. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alaska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Brandal v. State, Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
green
2 sentences2011In Whitesides , we concluded that the burden to the State in conducting an in-person hearing in those circumstances was low in part because "hearing officers can limit their travel to times when they have several cases for hearing." 20 P.3d at 1138 . [20] Brandal, 128 P.3d at 740 . [21] Alvarez also argues that "the hearing officer's unilateral decision to postpone matters another year until her return from maternity leave . . . was also arbitrary [and] capricious." But from the record it does not appear that the hearing officer's maternity leave affected the delay. 2011In Whitesides , we concluded that the burden to the State in conducting an in-person hearing in those circumstances was low in part because "hearing officers can limit their travel to times when they have several cases for hearing." 20 P.3d at 1138 . [20] Brandal, 128 P.3d at 740 . [21] Alvarez also argues that "the hearing officer's unilateral decision to postpone matters another year until her return from maternity leave . . . was also arbitrary [and] capricious." But from the record it does not appear that the hearing officer's maternity leave affected the delay. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Mathews v. Eldridge
green
2 sentences2008Safety, Div. of Motor Vehicles, 20 P.3d 1130, 1139 (Alaska 2001) (holding that when credibility of party is in issue at license revocation hearing, an in-person hearing is required). [18] Richard B., 71 P.3d at 829-30 (emphasis in original). [19] Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334-35 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976), cited in Richard B., 71 P.3d at 831 . [20] Richard B., 71 P.3d at 829 (quoting Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335 , 96 S.Ct. 893 ). [21] J.M.R. v. S.T.R., 15 P.3d 253, 257 (Alaska 2001). [22] Flores v. Flores, 598 P.2d 893, 895 (Alaska 1979). [23] Richard B., 71 P.3d at 831 . [24] 2008Safety, Div. of Motor Vehicles, 20 P.3d 1130, 1139 (Alaska 2001) (holding that when credibility of party is in issue at license revocation hearing, an in-person hearing is required). [18] Richard B., 71 P.3d at 829-30 (emphasis in original). [19] Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334-35 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976), cited in Richard B., 71 P.3d at 831 . [20] Richard B., 71 P.3d at 829 (quoting Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335 , 96 S.Ct. 893 ). [21] J.M.R. v. S.T.R., 15 P.3d 253, 257 (Alaska 2001). [22] Flores v. Flores, 598 P.2d 893, 895 (Alaska 1979). [23] Richard B., 71 P.3d at 831 . [24] | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Champion v. Department of Public Safety
green
2 sentences2007Safety, Div. of Motor Vehicles, 741 P.2d 226, 228 (Alaska 1987) (citing Champion, 721 P.2d at 133 ); see also Whitesides, 20 P.3d at 1135-36, 1138-39 (noting that DMV must permit the accused to test the reliability of evidence and may not consider evidence obtained in violation of the right to counsel, and holding that an in-person hearing must be provided on request where the credibility of a party is at issue). [37] Thorne, 774 P.2d at 1330 (holding that the State's failure to preserve a videotape of field sobriety tests taken an hour after a DWI arrest violated the driver's right to due pro 2007Safety, Div. of Motor Vehicles, 741 P.2d 226, 228 (Alaska 1987) (citing Champion, 721 P.2d at 133 ); see also Whitesides, 20 P.3d at 1135-36, 1138-39 (noting that DMV must permit the accused to test the reliability of evidence and may not consider evidence obtained in violation of the right to counsel, and holding that an in-person hearing must be provided on request where the credibility of a party is at issue). . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
United States v. Eight Thousand Eight Hundred & Fifty Dollars
green
2 sentences2001Former AS 28.15.166(e) provided for an in-person hearing held "at the office of the department nearest to the residence of the person requesting the hearing." Current law provides for the same locations for in-person hearings when they are found to be required. [4] Concerning his delay claim, Whitesides likens this case to United States v. $8,850 in United States Currency, 461 U.S. 555 , 103 S.Ct. 2005 , 76 L.Ed.2d 143 (1983), in which the United States Supreme Court held that delay in initiating a civil forfeiture case may violate due process and suggested a test similar to that used to deter 2001Former AS 28.15.166(e) provided for an in-person hearing held "at the office of the department nearest to the residence of the person requesting the hearing." Current law provides for the same locations for in-person hearings when they are found to be required. [4] Concerning his delay claim, Whitesides likens this case to United States v. $8,850 in United States Currency, 461 U.S. 555 , 103 S.Ct. 2005 , 76 L.Ed.2d 143 (1983), in which the United States Supreme Court held that delay in initiating a civil forfeiture case may violate due process and suggested a test similar to that used to deter | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Smith v. State, Department of Corrections
green
2 sentences1995To this effect, at the low end of the scale this court reviews legislatively created classifications "by asking whether a legitimate reason for disparate treatment exists, and, given a legitimate reason, whether the enactment bears a fair and substantial relationship to that reason." Id. [4] In Smith v. State, 872 P.2d 1218 (Alaska 1994), this court disposed of an equal protection claim based upon its conclusion that discretionary and mandatory parolees are not similarly situated for purposes of receiving an in-person hearing to determine their eligibility for release. 1995In Smith v. State, 872 P.2d 1218 (Alaska 1994), this court disposed of an equal protection claim based upon its conclusion that discretionary and mandatory parolees are not similarly situated for purposes of receiving an in-person hearing to determine their eligibility for release. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Gonzales v. Safeway Stores, Inc.
green
1 sentence1995To this effect, at the low end of the scale this court reviews legislatively created classifications "by asking whether a legitimate reason for disparate treatment exists, and, given a legitimate reason, whether the enactment bears a fair and substantial relationship to that reason." Id. [4] In Smith v. State, 872 P.2d 1218 (Alaska 1994), this court disposed of an equal protection claim based upon its conclusion that discretionary and mandatory parolees are not similarly situated for purposes of receiving an in-person hearing to determine their eligibility for release. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.
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.