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 1 courts 1980–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
AM v. Stategreen2 sentences2002Servs., 26 P.3d 1089, 1092 (Alaska 2001). [7] Sonneman v. Knight, 790 P.2d 702, 704 (Alaska 1990). [8] Guin v. Ha, 591 P.2d 1281 , 1284 n. 6 (Alaska 1979). [9] 25 U.S.C. § 1912 (d). [10] N.A. v. State, Div. of Family & Youth Servs., 19 P.3d 597, 603 (Alaska 2001). [11] A.A. v. State, Dept. of Family & Youth Servs., 982 P.2d 256, 261 (Alaska 1999). [12] A.M. v. State, 891 P.2d 815, 827 (Alaska 1995), overruled on other grounds, Matter of S.A., 912 P.2d 1235 , 1239 (Alaska 1996); see also A.B.M. v. M.H. & A.H., 651 P.2d 1170, 1173 (Alaska 1982) (holding that there was no compelling reason for im 2002A.M. v. State, 891 P.2d 815, 827 (Alaska 1995), overruled on other grounds, Matter of S.A., 912 P.2d 1235, 1239 (Alaska 1996); see also A.B.M. v. M.H. & A.H., 651 P.2d 1170, 1173 (Alaska 1982) (holding that there was no compelling reason for implying a judicially created exception to ICWA). . | 2 | 2 |
Abm v. Mhgreen2 sentences2002Servs., 26 P.3d 1089, 1092 (Alaska 2001). [7] Sonneman v. Knight, 790 P.2d 702, 704 (Alaska 1990). [8] Guin v. Ha, 591 P.2d 1281 , 1284 n. 6 (Alaska 1979). [9] 25 U.S.C. § 1912 (d). [10] N.A. v. State, Div. of Family & Youth Servs., 19 P.3d 597, 603 (Alaska 2001). [11] A.A. v. State, Dept. of Family & Youth Servs., 982 P.2d 256, 261 (Alaska 1999). [12] A.M. v. State, 891 P.2d 815, 827 (Alaska 1995), overruled on other grounds, Matter of S.A., 912 P.2d 1235 , 1239 (Alaska 1996); see also A.B.M. v. M.H. & A.H., 651 P.2d 1170, 1173 (Alaska 1982) (holding that there was no compelling reason for im 2002A.M. v. State, 891 P.2d 815, 827 (Alaska 1995), overruled on other grounds, Matter of S.A., 912 P.2d 1235, 1239 (Alaska 1996); see also A.B.M. v. M.H. & A.H., 651 P.2d 1170, 1173 (Alaska 1982) (holding that there was no compelling reason for implying a judicially created exception to ICWA). . | 2 | 2 |
Matter of SAgreen2 sentences2002Servs., 26 P.3d 1089, 1092 (Alaska 2001). [7] Sonneman v. Knight, 790 P.2d 702, 704 (Alaska 1990). [8] Guin v. Ha, 591 P.2d 1281 , 1284 n. 6 (Alaska 1979). [9] 25 U.S.C. § 1912 (d). [10] N.A. v. State, Div. of Family & Youth Servs., 19 P.3d 597, 603 (Alaska 2001). [11] A.A. v. State, Dept. of Family & Youth Servs., 982 P.2d 256, 261 (Alaska 1999). [12] A.M. v. State, 891 P.2d 815, 827 (Alaska 1995), overruled on other grounds, Matter of S.A., 912 P.2d 1235 , 1239 (Alaska 1996); see also A.B.M. v. M.H. & A.H., 651 P.2d 1170, 1173 (Alaska 1982) (holding that there was no compelling reason for im 2002A.M. v. State, 891 P.2d 815, 827 (Alaska 1995), overruled on other grounds, Matter of S.A., 912 P.2d 1235, 1239 (Alaska 1996); see also A.B.M. v. M.H. & A.H., 651 P.2d 1170, 1173 (Alaska 1982) (holding that there was no compelling reason for implying a judicially created exception to ICWA). . | 1 | 2 |
In Re the Necessity for the Hospitalization of Jacob S.green1 sentence2019In re Jacob S., 384 P.3d 758, 769-70 (Alaska 2016); In re Gabriel C., 324 P.3d 835, 837-40 (Alaska 2014). -15- 7328 precedent.”37 We have recognized that our precedent may be overturned as “originally erroneous” if it has “prove[d] to be unworkable in practice.”38 As we explained in Dakota K., “[m]ootness is a judicially created doctrine meant to promote expediency and judicial economy.”39 Our mootness jurisprudence has failed to achieve these goals: more, rather than fewer, resources of public attorneys and the court have been spent litigating mootness since Wetherhorn, with few if any corres | 1 | 1 |
In Re the Necessity for the Hospitalization of Gabriel C.green1 sentence2019In re Jacob S., 384 P.3d 758, 769-70 (Alaska 2016); In re Gabriel C., 324 P.3d 835, 837-40 (Alaska 2014). -15- 7328 precedent.”37 We have recognized that our precedent may be overturned as “originally erroneous” if it has “prove[d] to be unworkable in practice.”38 As we explained in Dakota K., “[m]ootness is a judicially created doctrine meant to promote expediency and judicial economy.”39 Our mootness jurisprudence has failed to achieve these goals: more, rather than fewer, resources of public attorneys and the court have been spent litigating mootness since Wetherhorn, with few if any corres | 1 | 1 |
State, Department of Corrections v. Heiseygreen1 sentence2017See State, Dep’t of Corr. v. Heisey, 271 P.3d 1082, 1095 .(Alaska 2012) ("A Bivens claim is a judicially created claim which gives relief to plaintiffs claiming federal constitutional violations by federal agents." (emphasis added)); State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. | 1 | 1 |
State, Department of Health & Social Services, Division of Family & Youth Services v. Native Village of Curyunggreen1 sentence2017Servs., Div. of Family & Youth Servs. v. Native Vill. of Curyung, 151 P.3d 388, 403 (Alaska 2006) ("The [United States] Supreme Court has unequivocally held that states are not proper defendants under § 1983.” (citing Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 69 , 117 S.Ct. 1055 , 137 L.Ed.2d 170 (1997))). 55 . | 1 | 1 |
Bowers Office Products, Inc. v. University of Alaskagreen1 sentence2007Bowers Office Products, Inc. v. Univ. of Alaska, 755 P.2d 1095, 1097 (Alaska 1988). | 1 | 1 |
NA v. Stategreen1 sentence2002Servs., 26 P.3d 1089, 1092 (Alaska 2001). [7] Sonneman v. Knight, 790 P.2d 702, 704 (Alaska 1990). [8] Guin v. Ha, 591 P.2d 1281 , 1284 n. 6 (Alaska 1979). [9] 25 U.S.C. § 1912 (d). [10] N.A. v. State, Div. of Family & Youth Servs., 19 P.3d 597, 603 (Alaska 2001). [11] A.A. v. State, Dept. of Family & Youth Servs., 982 P.2d 256, 261 (Alaska 1999). [12] A.M. v. State, 891 P.2d 815, 827 (Alaska 1995), overruled on other grounds, Matter of S.A., 912 P.2d 1235 , 1239 (Alaska 1996); see also A.B.M. v. M.H. & A.H., 651 P.2d 1170, 1173 (Alaska 1982) (holding that there was no compelling reason for im | 1 | 1 |
AA v. Stategreen1 sentence2002Servs., 26 P.3d 1089, 1092 (Alaska 2001). [7] Sonneman v. Knight, 790 P.2d 702, 704 (Alaska 1990). [8] Guin v. Ha, 591 P.2d 1281 , 1284 n. 6 (Alaska 1979). [9] 25 U.S.C. § 1912 (d). [10] N.A. v. State, Div. of Family & Youth Servs., 19 P.3d 597, 603 (Alaska 2001). [11] A.A. v. State, Dept. of Family & Youth Servs., 982 P.2d 256, 261 (Alaska 1999). [12] A.M. v. State, 891 P.2d 815, 827 (Alaska 1995), overruled on other grounds, Matter of S.A., 912 P.2d 1235 , 1239 (Alaska 1996); see also A.B.M. v. M.H. & A.H., 651 P.2d 1170, 1173 (Alaska 1982) (holding that there was no compelling reason for im | 1 | 1 |
Sonneman v. Knightgreen1 sentence2002Servs., 26 P.3d 1089, 1092 (Alaska 2001). [7] Sonneman v. Knight, 790 P.2d 702, 704 (Alaska 1990). [8] Guin v. Ha, 591 P.2d 1281 , 1284 n. 6 (Alaska 1979). [9] 25 U.S.C. § 1912 (d). [10] N.A. v. State, Div. of Family & Youth Servs., 19 P.3d 597, 603 (Alaska 2001). [11] A.A. v. State, Dept. of Family & Youth Servs., 982 P.2d 256, 261 (Alaska 1999). [12] A.M. v. State, 891 P.2d 815, 827 (Alaska 1995), overruled on other grounds, Matter of S.A., 912 P.2d 1235 , 1239 (Alaska 1996); see also A.B.M. v. M.H. & A.H., 651 P.2d 1170, 1173 (Alaska 1982) (holding that there was no compelling reason for im | 1 | 1 |
T.F. v. State, Department of Health & Social Servicesgreen1 sentence2002Servs., 26 P.3d 1089, 1092 (Alaska 2001). [7] Sonneman v. Knight, 790 P.2d 702, 704 (Alaska 1990). [8] Guin v. Ha, 591 P.2d 1281 , 1284 n. 6 (Alaska 1979). [9] 25 U.S.C. § 1912 (d). [10] N.A. v. State, Div. of Family & Youth Servs., 19 P.3d 597, 603 (Alaska 2001). [11] A.A. v. State, Dept. of Family & Youth Servs., 982 P.2d 256, 261 (Alaska 1999). [12] A.M. v. State, 891 P.2d 815, 827 (Alaska 1995), overruled on other grounds, Matter of S.A., 912 P.2d 1235 , 1239 (Alaska 1996); see also A.B.M. v. M.H. & A.H., 651 P.2d 1170, 1173 (Alaska 1982) (holding that there was no compelling reason for im | 1 | 1 |
McKinnon v. Alpetco Co.green1 sentence1998McKinnon v. Alpetco Co., 633 P.2d 281, 287 (Alaska 1981). 26 We have never applied the rule to bar contract amendments approved by the legislature. 27 The superior court held that, “where the legislature itself amends a competitively bid contract, employing the committee and public hearing process, the need for the judiciary to protect legislative policy is essentially obviated.” The superior court *434 also reasoned that, because the legislature has the authority to create DNR and pass the leasing statutes, it would be illogical to conclude that the legislature lacks the authority to amend th | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alaska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Braga v. W. H. N. Realty Corp.
neutral
2 sentences1982In re Anonymous, 41 A.D.2d 961 , 344 N.Y.S.2d 426 (Sup.Ct.App. 1982In re Anonymous, 41 A.D.2d 961 , 344 N.Y.S.2d 426 (Sup.Ct.App. | 2 | 1982–1982 |
In re Anonymous
neutral
2 sentences1982In re Anonymous, 41 A.D.2d 961 , 344 N.Y.S.2d 426 (Sup.Ct.App. 1982In re Anonymous, 41 A.D.2d 961 , 344 N.Y.S.2d 426 (Sup.Ct.App. | 2 | 1982–1982 |
Small v. Andrews
green
2 sentences1982App. 6 , 530 P.2d 540 (1975) were decided in the absence of a specific statute governing withdrawal of consent and both applied the jurisdiction's judicially created rule that absent grounds for estoppel a consent may be withdrawn at any time prior to the entry of an adoption decree. 1982In re Anderson, 99 Idaho 805 , 589 P.2d 957 (1979) and Small v. Andrews, 20 Or.App. 6 , 530 P.2d 540 (1975) were decided in the absence of a specific statute governing withdrawal of consent and both applied the jurisdiction’s judicially created rule that absent grounds for estoppel a consent may be withdrawn at any time prior to the entry of an adoption decree. | 2 | 1982–1982 |
Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2017Servs., Div. of Family & Youth Servs. v. Native Vill. of Curyung, 151 P.3d 388, 403 (Alaska 2006) ("The [United States] Supreme Court has unequivocally held that states are not proper defendants under § 1983.” (citing Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 69 , 117 S.Ct. 1055 , 137 L.Ed.2d 170 (1997))). 55 . 2017Servs., Div. of Family & Youth Servs. v. Native Vill. of Curyung, 151 P.3d 388, 403 (Alaska 2006) ("The [United States] Supreme Court has unequivocally held that states are not proper defendants under § 1983.” (citing Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 69 , 117 S.Ct. 1055 , 137 L.Ed.2d 170 (1997))). 55 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Guin v. Ha
green
1 sentence2002Servs., 26 P.3d 1089, 1092 (Alaska 2001). [7] Sonneman v. Knight, 790 P.2d 702, 704 (Alaska 1990). [8] Guin v. Ha, 591 P.2d 1281 , 1284 n. 6 (Alaska 1979). [9] 25 U.S.C. § 1912 (d). [10] N.A. v. State, Div. of Family & Youth Servs., 19 P.3d 597, 603 (Alaska 2001). [11] A.A. v. State, Dept. of Family & Youth Servs., 982 P.2d 256, 261 (Alaska 1999). [12] A.M. v. State, 891 P.2d 815, 827 (Alaska 1995), overruled on other grounds, Matter of S.A., 912 P.2d 1235 , 1239 (Alaska 1996); see also A.B.M. v. M.H. & A.H., 651 P.2d 1170, 1173 (Alaska 1982) (holding that there was no compelling reason for im | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Matter of Andersen
green
2 sentences1982In re Anderson, 99 Idaho 805 , 589 P.2d 957 (1979) and Small v. Andrews, 20 Or.App. 6 , 530 P.2d 540 (1975) were decided in the absence of a specific statute governing withdrawal of consent and both applied the jurisdiction’s judicially created rule that absent grounds for estoppel a consent may be withdrawn at any time prior to the entry of an adoption decree. 1982In re Anderson, 99 Idaho 805 , 589 P.2d 957 (1979) and Small v. Andrews, 20 Or.App. 6 , 530 P.2d 540 (1975) were decided in the absence of a specific statute governing withdrawal of consent and both applied the jurisdiction’s judicially created rule that absent grounds for estoppel a consent may be withdrawn at any time prior to the entry of an adoption decree. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
People Ex Rel. Hemingway v. Elrod
green
2 sentences1980Hemingway v. Elrod, 60 Ill.2d 74 , 322 N.E.2d 837 (1975), the Illinois Supreme Court rejected the Illinois Assembly’s attempt to define “capital offenses” subject to only discretionary pre-trial release, in the wake of Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 , 92 S.Ct. 2726 , 33 L.Ed.2d 346 , reh. denied, 409 U.S. 902 , 93 S.Ct. 89 , 34 L.Ed.2d 163 (1972). 1980Hemingway v. Elrod, 60 Ill.2d 74 , 322 N.E.2d 837 (1975), the Illinois Supreme Court rejected the Illinois Assembly’s attempt to define “capital offenses” subject to only discretionary pre-trial release, in the wake of Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 , 92 S.Ct. 2726 , 33 L.Ed.2d 346 , reh. denied, 409 U.S. 902 , 93 S.Ct. 89 , 34 L.Ed.2d 163 (1972). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Furman v. Georgia
green
2 sentences1980Hemingway v. Elrod, 60 Ill.2d 74 , 322 N.E.2d 837 (1975), the Illinois Supreme Court rejected the Illinois Assembly’s attempt to define “capital offenses” subject to only discretionary pre-trial release, in the wake of Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 , 92 S.Ct. 2726 , 33 L.Ed.2d 346 , reh. denied, 409 U.S. 902 , 93 S.Ct. 89 , 34 L.Ed.2d 163 (1972). 1980Hemingway v. Elrod, 60 Ill.2d 74 , 322 N.E.2d 837 (1975), the Illinois Supreme Court rejected the Illinois Assembly’s attempt to define “capital offenses” subject to only discretionary pre-trial release, in the wake of Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 , 92 S.Ct. 2726 , 33 L.Ed.2d 346 , reh. denied, 409 U.S. 902 , 93 S.Ct. 89 , 34 L.Ed.2d 163 (1972). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Furman v. Georgia
green
2 sentences1980Hemingway v. Elrod, 60 Ill.2d 74 , 322 N.E.2d 837 (1975), the Illinois Supreme Court rejected the Illinois Assembly’s attempt to define “capital offenses” subject to only discretionary pre-trial release, in the wake of Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 , 92 S.Ct. 2726 , 33 L.Ed.2d 346 , reh. denied, 409 U.S. 902 , 93 S.Ct. 89 , 34 L.Ed.2d 163 (1972). 1980Hemingway v. Elrod, 60 Ill.2d 74 , 322 N.E.2d 837 (1975), the Illinois Supreme Court rejected the Illinois Assembly's attempt to define "capital offenses" subject to only discretionary pre-trial release, in the wake of Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 , 92 S.Ct. 2726 , 33 L.Ed.2d 346 , reh. denied, 409 U.S. 902 , 93 S.Ct. 89 , 34 L.Ed.2d 163 (1972). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.