right to peremptorily challenge (Alaska) · Go Syfert
← Alaska issues

right to peremptorily challenge in Alaska

9 Alaska opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2023 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.

Followed or applied (5)

CaseFollowedCited
Harp v. ARCO Alaska, Inc.green
alaska · 1992 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009
1 sentence

2009Harp v. ARCO Alaska, Inc., 831 P.2d 352, 358 (Alaska 1992). 43 .

11
Tunley v. Municipality of Anchorage School Districtgreen
alaska · 1981 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005
1 sentence

2005A waiver of a party’s right to peremptorily challenge a judge “can be found only ... after the party is informed that the judge before whom he or she is appearing is the judge permanently assigned to hear the case or is assigned for trial.” Tunley v. Municipality of Anchorage School Dist., 631 P.2d 67, 73 (Alaska 1980) (emphasis added).

11
Kvasnikoff v. Stategreen
alaska · 1975 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992
1 sentence

1992Kvasnikoff v. State, 535 P.2d 464, 466 (Alaska 1975).

11
Gardner v. Stategreen
alaskactapp · 1985 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 1987–1987
1 sentence

1987See Gardner v. State, 702 P.2d 250 (Alaska App.1985) (defendant’s participation in a contested bail hearing in front of a judge did not waive the right to peremptorily challenge that judge under Criminal Rule 25(d)(5)). 3 .

11
Roberts v. Stategreen
alaska · 1969 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 1975–1975
1 sentence

1975If a party does not file a timely affidavit requesting disqualification, then the party is deemed to have waived his statutory right to peremptorily challenge a judge. 3 Roberts v. State, 458 P.2d 340, 346 (Alaska 1969).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alaska. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
Riley v. State green
alaska · 1980
2 sentences

1988In these circumstances, the supreme court held: "The right to peremptorily challenge a judge is sufficiently important so that it should not be lost by inaction before there is an opportunity to confer with an attorney." 608 P.2d at 29 .

1988In these circumstances, the supreme court held: “The right to peremptorily challenge a judge is sufficiently important so that it should not be lost by inaction before there is an opportunity to confer with an attorney.” 608 P.2d at 29 .

21988–1988
Morgan v. State green
alaska · 1981
1 sentence

2023Id. at 480 .

12023–2023
Lee v. State green
alaska · 1973
1 sentence

2023(Indeed, in Akers, we held that the defendant was entitled to appear before a district court judge for her contested misdemeanor probation revocation proceeding, even though she had appeared before the same magistrate judge for her prior probation revocation proceeding without objection.33) Moreover, the absence of Tommy’s express consent is particularly problematic here, where there is no indication that Tommy was ever informed of her right to be tried before a district court judge and waived the right in light of that knowledge.34 As the Third Circuit stated when construing the analogous fed

12023–2023
Gieffels v. State green
alaska · 1976
1 sentence

1980It is true that the procedure for the exercise of the right to peremptorily challenge a judge is governed solely by Alaska Rule of Criminal Procedure 25(d), Gieffels v. State, 552 P.2d at 667 , and the rule, read literally, allows the time for exercise of the right to run independent of the appearance of counsel. 10 However, we believe that in these cases the court abused its discretion in failing to waive, under Alaska Rule of Criminal Procedure 53, 11 the strict requirements of the rule.

11980–1980

Where else courts name it

CA 17 (1959–2025) IL 13 (1966–2024) AK 9 (1975–2023) FL 4 (1894–1986) OH 4 (1988–2023) AZ 4 (1953–1990) LA 3 (1976–1984) MN 3 (1980–2008) TX 2 (1994–1995)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check