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.
9 Alaska opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2023 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hayes v. Charneygreen2 sentences2021See Hayes v. Charney, 693 P.2d 831, 834 (Alaska 1985) (“The public interest exception involves the consideration of three main factors: 1) whether the disputed issues are capable of repetition, 2) whether the mootness doctrine, if applied, may repeatedly circumvent review of the issues and, 3) whether the issues presented are so important to the public interest as to justify overriding the mootness doctrine.”). –2– 2698 introduction of the recording.” The superior court accordingly granted Powell’s motion to dismiss. 1991Hayes v. Charney, 693 P.2d 831, 834 (Alaska 1985). | 5 | 5 |
Kodiak Seafood Processors Ass'n v. Stategreen1 sentence2023We agree with the State that the superior court has jurisdiction under AS 13.26.710 to appoint OPA to serve as guardian as a matter of last resort Seafood Processors Ass’n v. State, 900 P.2d 1191, 1196 (Alaska 1995) (“The public interest exception requires the consideration of three main factors: (1) whether the disputed issues are capable of repetition, (2) whether the mootness doctrine, if applied, may cause review of the issues to be repeatedly circumvented, and (3) whether the issues presented are so important to the public interest as to justify overriding the mootness doctrine.”). -2- OR | 1 | 1 |
State v. Robertsgreen1 sentence2020Although J.K.’s case was now moot, we granted the petition under the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine.8 We now hold that the prolonged delay in 5 See Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972). 6 We use initials to protect J.K.’s privacy. 7 Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972). 8 See State v. Roberts, 999 P.2d 151, 153 (Alaska App. 2000) (“The public interest exception requires the consideration of three main factors: (1) whether the disputed issues (continued...) –3– 2670 obtaining competency restoration treatment violated J.K.’s right to substantive due process and required | 1 | 1 |
Peloza v. Freasgreen1 sentence1995Peloza v. Freas, 871 P.2d 687, 688 (Alaska 1994); Brandon, 865 P.2d at 92 n. 6. | 1 | 1 |
Johansen v. Stategreen2 sentences1985E.g., Etheredge v. Bradley, 502 P.2d 146, 153 (Alaska 1972); Johansen v. State, 491 P.2d 759, 762 (Alaska 1971). 1985E.g., Etheredge v. Bradley, 502 P.2d 146, 153 (Alaska 1972); Johansen v. State, 491 P.2d 759, 762 (Alaska 1971). | 1 | 1 |
Etheredge v. Bradleygreen2 sentences1985E.g., Etheredge v. Bradley, 502 P.2d 146, 153 (Alaska 1972); Johansen v. State, 491 P.2d 759, 762 (Alaska 1971). 1985E.g., Etheredge v. Bradley, 502 P.2d 146, 153 (Alaska 1972); Johansen v. State, 491 P.2d 759, 762 (Alaska 1971). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alaska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jackson v. Indiana
green
2 sentences2020Although J.K.’s case was now moot, we granted the petition under the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine.8 We now hold that the prolonged delay in 5 See Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972). 6 We use initials to protect J.K.’s privacy. 7 Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972). 8 See State v. Roberts, 999 P.2d 151, 153 (Alaska App. 2000) (“The public interest exception requires the consideration of three main factors: (1) whether the disputed issues (continued...) –3– 2670 obtaining competency restoration treatment violated J.K.’s right to substantive due process and required 2020Although J.K.’s case was now moot, we granted the petition under the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine.8 We now hold that the prolonged delay in 5 See Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972). 6 We use initials to protect J.K.’s privacy. 7 Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972). 8 See State v. Roberts, 999 P.2d 151, 153 (Alaska App. 2000) (“The public interest exception requires the consideration of three main factors: (1) whether the disputed issues (continued...) –3– 2670 obtaining competency restoration treatment violated J.K.’s right to substantive due process and required | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Brandon v. Department of Corrections
green
1 sentence1995Peloza v. Freas, 871 P.2d 687, 688 (Alaska 1994); Brandon, 865 P.2d at 92 n. 6. | 1 | 1995–1995 |