individual claim in Alaska

2024Council of Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, 403 P.3d 1172 , 1178 n.32 (Alaska 2017) (“[A] waiver of tribal sovereign immunity may not be implied.”). 129 While we adopt the same factors as the federal courts, our arm-of-the-tribe inquiry may differ somewhat from the inquiries in those jurisdictions.

2024Lack of housing outside of the institutional context is not enough, on its own, to find that a person is at risk due to neglect of the basic need for shelter.15 But it is important context, especially if there is concern that a person will not remain stable in a homeless shelter.16 Additionally, a lack of viable outpatient services can contribute to a finding of grave disability, especially if the person has deteriorated in an outpatient setting in the past.17 But concern that a person will suffer harm as a result of stopping medications and subsequently decompensating must be based on more th

2024These five factors — (1) purpose, (2) method of creation, (3) control, (4) tribal intent, and (5) financial relationship — properly account for the inherent sovereignty of tribes and the federal policies underlying tribal sovereign immunity, including tribal self-governance, self-sufficiency, and cultural autonomy.129 Breakthrough also articulated a sixth factor, “whether the purposes of tribal sovereign immunity are served by granting immunity,” 130 but we agree with the California Supreme Court that this serves to focus the analysis of the individual factors on the purposes of tribal soverei

2024Lack of housing outside of the institutional context is not enough, on its own, to find that a person is at risk due to neglect of the basic need for shelter.15 But it is important context, especially if there is concern that a person will not remain stable in a homeless shelter.16 Additionally, a lack of viable outpatient services can contribute to a finding of grave disability, especially if the person has deteriorated in an outpatient setting in the past.17 But concern that a person will suffer harm as a result of stopping medications and subsequently decompensating must be based on more th

2024Lack of housing outside of the institutional context is not enough, on its own, to find that a person is at risk due to neglect of the basic need for shelter.15 But it is important context, especially if there is concern that a person will not remain stable in a homeless shelter.16 Additionally, a lack of viable outpatient services can contribute to a finding of grave disability, especially if the person has deteriorated in an outpatient setting in the past.17 But concern that a person will suffer harm as a result of stopping medications and subsequently decompensating must be based on more th

2024Lack of housing outside of the institutional context is not enough, on its own, to find that a person is at risk due to neglect of the basic need for shelter.15 But it is important context, especially if there is concern that a person will not remain stable in a homeless shelter.16 Additionally, a lack of viable outpatient services can contribute to a finding of grave disability, especially if the person has deteriorated in an outpatient setting in the past.17 But concern that a person will suffer harm as a result of stopping medications and subsequently decompensating must be based on more th

2016And when read together, the court’s orders indicated that McKay still had an individual claim that 6 Breck v. Ulmer, 745 P.2d 66, 75 (Alaska 1987) (stating that the pleadings of pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than those of lawyers). 7 See AS 47.17.020(a)(7) (imposing a duty on “paid employees of an organization that provides counseling or treatment to individuals seeking to control their use of drugs or alcohol” to report suspected child abuse or neglect). -15- 1592 had not been dismissed.

2013Ass’n v. State, 817 P.2d 917, 922 (Alaska 1991)). 18 Former AS 43.23.008(b) (2007). -8- 6849 This section prohibits a PFD applicant from claiming an allowable absence under former AS 43.23.008(a)(1)-(15) if that person did not reside in the state for at least six consecutive months immediately before leaving the state.

2013It provides: An individual may not claim an allowable absence under (a)(1)-(15) of this section unless the individual was a resident of the state for at least six consecutive months immediately before leaving the state.[18] 14 AS 43.23.008(b) (emphasis added). 15 City of Dillingham v. CH2M Hill Nw., Inc., 873 P.2d 1271, 1276 (Alaska 1994) (citing Saunders Props. v. Municipality of Anchorage, 846 P.2d 135 , 138 n.4 (Alaska 1993)). 16 Id. (citing N. Slope Borough v. Sohio Petroleum Corp., 585 P.2d 534 , 540 & n.7 (Alaska 1978)). 17 Id. (citing Peninsula Mktg.

1992Nebraska Public Power Dist., 773 F.2d at 968-69.

1991Neither in his pretrial memorandum, nor at closing argument did Grant advance such a claim. 10 “It is well established that matters not raised at trial will not be considered on appeal.” Brooks v. Brooks, 733 P.2d 1044, 1053 (Alaska 1987).

1986See R.L.R. v. State, 487 P.2d 27, 39 (Alaska 1971) (establishing minor’s rights to have the public admitted to his or her hearing). 7 .