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.
8 Alaska opinions name it 2 courts 1970–2011 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 |
|---|---|---|
Shortt v. Lasswellgreen2 sentences1998Compare, e.g., Shortt v. Lasswell, 765 S.W.2d 387 (Mo. App. 1989). 1998Compare, e.g., Shortt v. Lasswell, 765 S.W.2d 387 (Mo.App.1989). | 2 | 2 |
Thompson v. Stategreen1 sentence2011The State relies on this Court's decision in Thompson v. State, 210 P.3d 1233, 1238-39 (Alaska App.2009), where we stated that "the modern test for authentication [of an audio recording] is whether the proponent of the evidence has presented sufficient evidence to support a rational finding that the . recording is authentic". | 1 | 1 |
Kaps Transport, Inc. v. Henrygreen1 sentence2009See Johnson v. State, 636 P.2d 47, 67 (Alaska 1981), and Kaps Transport, Inc. v. Henry, 572 P.2d 72, 75-76 (Alaska 1977), both holding that the admissibility of photographic evidence hinges on whether the proponent of the evidence can establish that the photograph accurately depicts its subject.) With regard to the two tape-recorded conversations at issue in Thompson's case, the State presented testimony to support the conclusions (1) that A.D.'s mother engaged Thompson in conversation about his relationship with A.D., (2) that A.D.'s mother recorded two of these conversations, and (8) that sh | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Stategreen1 sentence2009See Johnson v. State, 636 P.2d 47, 67 (Alaska 1981), and Kaps Transport, Inc. v. Henry, 572 P.2d 72, 75-76 (Alaska 1977), both holding that the admissibility of photographic evidence hinges on whether the proponent of the evidence can establish that the photograph accurately depicts its subject.) With regard to the two tape-recorded conversations at issue in Thompson's case, the State presented testimony to support the conclusions (1) that A.D.'s mother engaged Thompson in conversation about his relationship with A.D., (2) that A.D.'s mother recorded two of these conversations, and (8) that sh | 1 | 1 |
Litsey v. District Courtgreen2 sentences2006See, e.g., Estrada, 48 Cal.Rptr. 172 , 408 P.2d at 953 ("A legislative mitigation of the penalty for a particular crime represents a legislative judgment that the lesser penalty or the different treatment is sufficient to meet the legitimate ends of the criminal law.... [I]t is safe to assume, as the modern rule does, that it was the legislative design that the lighter penalty should be imposed in all cases that subsequently reach the courts.”); Litsey v. District Court, 193 Colo. 341 , 565 P.2d 1343, 1344 (1977) (defendant was entitled to the benefit of change in law reducing look-back for pr 2006See, e.g., Estrada, 48 Cal.Rptr. 172 , 408 P.2d at 953 ("A legislative mitigation of the penalty for a particular crime represents a legislative judgment that the lesser penalty or the different treatment is sufficient to meet the legitimate ends of the criminal law.... [I]t is safe to assume, as the modern rule does, that it was the legislative design that the lighter penalty should be imposed in all cases that subsequently reach the courts.”); Litsey v. District Court, 193 Colo. 341 , 565 P.2d 1343, 1344 (1977) (defendant was entitled to the benefit of change in law reducing look-back for pr | 1 | 1 |
In Re Application of Smigelskigreen2 sentences2006See, e.g., Estrada, 48 Cal.Rptr. 172 , 408 P.2d at 953 ("A legislative mitigation of the penalty for a particular crime represents a legislative judgment that the lesser penalty or the different treatment is sufficient to meet the legitimate ends of the criminal law.... [I]t is safe to assume, as the modern rule does, that it was the legislative design that the lighter penalty should be imposed in all cases that subsequently reach the courts.”); Litsey v. District Court, 193 Colo. 341 , 565 P.2d 1343, 1344 (1977) (defendant was entitled to the benefit of change in law reducing look-back for pr 2006See, e.g., Estrada, 48 Cal.Rptr. 172 , 408 P.2d at 953 ("A legislative mitigation of the penalty for a particular crime represents a legislative judgment that the lesser penalty or the different treatment is sufficient to meet the legitimate ends of the criminal law.... [I]t is safe to assume, as the modern rule does, that it was the legislative design that the lighter penalty should be imposed in all cases that subsequently reach the courts.”); Litsey v. District Court, 193 Colo. 341 , 565 P.2d 1343, 1344 (1977) (defendant was entitled to the benefit of change in law reducing look-back for pr | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wilsongreen2 sentences2006See, e.g., Estrada, 48 Cal.Rptr. 172 , 408 P.2d at 953 ("A legislative mitigation of the penalty for a particular crime represents a legislative judgment that the lesser penalty or the different treatment is sufficient to meet the legitimate ends of the criminal law.... [I]t is safe to assume, as the modern rule does, that it was the legislative design that the lighter penalty should be imposed in all cases that subsequently reach the courts.”); Litsey v. District Court, 193 Colo. 341 , 565 P.2d 1343, 1344 (1977) (defendant was entitled to the benefit of change in law reducing look-back for pr 2006See, e.g., Estrada, 48 Cal.Rptr. 172 , 408 P.2d at 953 ("A legislative mitigation of the penalty for a particular crime represents a legislative judgment that the lesser penalty or the different treatment is sufficient to meet the legitimate ends of the criminal law.... [I]t is safe to assume, as the modern rule does, that it was the legislative design that the lighter penalty should be imposed in all cases that subsequently reach the courts.”); Litsey v. District Court, 193 Colo. 341 , 565 P.2d 1343, 1344 (1977) (defendant was entitled to the benefit of change in law reducing look-back for pr | 1 | 1 |
Elkins v. Stategreen1 sentence2006See, e.g., Estrada, 48 Cal.Rptr. 172 , 408 P.2d at 953 ("A legislative mitigation of the penalty for a particular crime represents a legislative judgment that the lesser penalty or the different treatment is sufficient to meet the legitimate ends of the criminal law.... [I]t is safe to assume, as the modern rule does, that it was the legislative design that the lighter penalty should be imposed in all cases that subsequently reach the courts.”); Litsey v. District Court, 193 Colo. 341 , 565 P.2d 1343, 1344 (1977) (defendant was entitled to the benefit of change in law reducing look-back for pr | 1 | 1 |
State v. Randolphgreen2 sentences2006See, e.g., Estrada, 48 Cal.Rptr. 172 , 408 P.2d at 953 ("A legislative mitigation of the penalty for a particular crime represents a legislative judgment that the lesser penalty or the different treatment is sufficient to meet the legitimate ends of the criminal law.... [I]t is safe to assume, as the modern rule does, that it was the legislative design that the lighter penalty should be imposed in all cases that subsequently reach the courts.”); Litsey v. District Court, 193 Colo. 341 , 565 P.2d 1343, 1344 (1977) (defendant was entitled to the benefit of change in law reducing look-back for pr 2006See, e.g., Estrada, 48 Cal.Rptr. 172 , 408 P.2d at 953 ("A legislative mitigation of the penalty for a particular crime represents a legislative judgment that the lesser penalty or the different treatment is sufficient to meet the legitimate ends of the criminal law.... [I]t is safe to assume, as the modern rule does, that it was the legislative design that the lighter penalty should be imposed in all cases that subsequently reach the courts.”); Litsey v. District Court, 193 Colo. 341 , 565 P.2d 1343, 1344 (1977) (defendant was entitled to the benefit of change in law reducing look-back for pr | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cummingsgreen1 sentence2006See, e.g., Estrada, 48 Cal.Rptr. 172 , 408 P.2d at 953 ("A legislative mitigation of the penalty for a particular crime represents a legislative judgment that the lesser penalty or the different treatment is sufficient to meet the legitimate ends of the criminal law.... [I]t is safe to assume, as the modern rule does, that it was the legislative design that the lighter penalty should be imposed in all cases that subsequently reach the courts.”); Litsey v. District Court, 193 Colo. 341 , 565 P.2d 1343, 1344 (1977) (defendant was entitled to the benefit of change in law reducing look-back for pr | 1 | 1 |
In Re Estradagreen2 sentences2006See, e.g., Estrada, 48 Cal.Rptr. 172 , 408 P.2d at 953 ("A legislative mitigation of the penalty for a particular crime represents a legislative judgment that the lesser penalty or the different treatment is sufficient to meet the legitimate ends of the criminal law.... [I]t is safe to assume, as the modern rule does, that it was the legislative design that the lighter penalty should be imposed in all cases that subsequently reach the courts.”); Litsey v. District Court, 193 Colo. 341 , 565 P.2d 1343, 1344 (1977) (defendant was entitled to the benefit of change in law reducing look-back for pr 2006See, e.g., Estrada, 48 Cal.Rptr. 172 , 408 P.2d at 953 ("A legislative mitigation of the penalty for a particular crime represents a legislative judgment that the lesser penalty or the different treatment is sufficient to meet the legitimate ends of the criminal law.... [I]t is safe to assume, as the modern rule does, that it was the legislative design that the lighter penalty should be imposed in all cases that subsequently reach the courts.”); Litsey v. District Court, 193 Colo. 341 , 565 P.2d 1343, 1344 (1977) (defendant was entitled to the benefit of change in law reducing look-back for pr | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pardongreen2 sentences2006See, e.g., Estrada, 48 Cal.Rptr. 172 , 408 P.2d at 953 ("A legislative mitigation of the penalty for a particular crime represents a legislative judgment that the lesser penalty or the different treatment is sufficient to meet the legitimate ends of the criminal law.... [I]t is safe to assume, as the modern rule does, that it was the legislative design that the lighter penalty should be imposed in all cases that subsequently reach the courts.”); Litsey v. District Court, 193 Colo. 341 , 565 P.2d 1343, 1344 (1977) (defendant was entitled to the benefit of change in law reducing look-back for pr 2006See, e.g., Estrada, 48 Cal.Rptr. 172 , 408 P.2d at 953 ("A legislative mitigation of the penalty for a particular crime represents a legislative judgment that the lesser penalty or the different treatment is sufficient to meet the legitimate ends of the criminal law.... [I]t is safe to assume, as the modern rule does, that it was the legislative design that the lighter penalty should be imposed in all cases that subsequently reach the courts.”); Litsey v. District Court, 193 Colo. 341 , 565 P.2d 1343, 1344 (1977) (defendant was entitled to the benefit of change in law reducing look-back for pr | 1 | 1 |
State v. MacArelligreen2 sentences2006See, e.g., Estrada, 48 Cal.Rptr. 172 , 408 P.2d at 953 ("A legislative mitigation of the penalty for a particular crime represents a legislative judgment that the lesser penalty or the different treatment is sufficient to meet the legitimate ends of the criminal law.... [I]t is safe to assume, as the modern rule does, that it was the legislative design that the lighter penalty should be imposed in all cases that subsequently reach the courts.”); Litsey v. District Court, 193 Colo. 341 , 565 P.2d 1343, 1344 (1977) (defendant was entitled to the benefit of change in law reducing look-back for pr 2006See, e.g., Estrada, 48 Cal.Rptr. 172 , 408 P.2d at 953 ("A legislative mitigation of the penalty for a particular crime represents a legislative judgment that the lesser penalty or the different treatment is sufficient to meet the legitimate ends of the criminal law.... [I]t is safe to assume, as the modern rule does, that it was the legislative design that the lighter penalty should be imposed in all cases that subsequently reach the courts.”); Litsey v. District Court, 193 Colo. 341 , 565 P.2d 1343, 1344 (1977) (defendant was entitled to the benefit of change in law reducing look-back for pr | 1 | 1 |
State v. Andrewsgreen1 sentence2006State v. Andrews, 707 P.2d 900, 907 (Alaska App.1985), opinion adopted by State v. Andrews, 723 P.2d 85, 86 (Alaska 1986); see also Wells v. State, 706 P.2d 711,713 (Alaska App.1985) ("It is well established that, in accordance with the rule of lenity, ambiguities in penal statutes must be resolved in favor of the accused.”). 44 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Tappgreen1 sentence2006See, e.g., Estrada, 48 Cal.Rptr. 172 , 408 P.2d at 953 ("A legislative mitigation of the penalty for a particular crime represents a legislative judgment that the lesser penalty or the different treatment is sufficient to meet the legitimate ends of the criminal law.... [I]t is safe to assume, as the modern rule does, that it was the legislative design that the lighter penalty should be imposed in all cases that subsequently reach the courts.”); Litsey v. District Court, 193 Colo. 341 , 565 P.2d 1343, 1344 (1977) (defendant was entitled to the benefit of change in law reducing look-back for pr | 1 | 1 |
People v. Schultzgreen2 sentences2006See, e.g., Estrada, 48 Cal.Rptr. 172 , 408 P.2d at 953 ("A legislative mitigation of the penalty for a particular crime represents a legislative judgment that the lesser penalty or the different treatment is sufficient to meet the legitimate ends of the criminal law.... [I]t is safe to assume, as the modern rule does, that it was the legislative design that the lighter penalty should be imposed in all cases that subsequently reach the courts.”); Litsey v. District Court, 193 Colo. 341 , 565 P.2d 1343, 1344 (1977) (defendant was entitled to the benefit of change in law reducing look-back for pr 2006See, e.g., Estrada, 48 Cal.Rptr. 172 , 408 P.2d at 953 ("A legislative mitigation of the penalty for a particular crime represents a legislative judgment that the lesser penalty or the different treatment is sufficient to meet the legitimate ends of the criminal law.... [I]t is safe to assume, as the modern rule does, that it was the legislative design that the lighter penalty should be imposed in all cases that subsequently reach the courts.”); Litsey v. District Court, 193 Colo. 341 , 565 P.2d 1343, 1344 (1977) (defendant was entitled to the benefit of change in law reducing look-back for pr | 1 | 1 |
State v. Coolidgegreen1 sentence2006See, e.g., Estrada, 48 Cal.Rptr. 172 , 408 P.2d at 953 ("A legislative mitigation of the penalty for a particular crime represents a legislative judgment that the lesser penalty or the different treatment is sufficient to meet the legitimate ends of the criminal law.... [I]t is safe to assume, as the modern rule does, that it was the legislative design that the lighter penalty should be imposed in all cases that subsequently reach the courts.”); Litsey v. District Court, 193 Colo. 341 , 565 P.2d 1343, 1344 (1977) (defendant was entitled to the benefit of change in law reducing look-back for pr | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wiesegreen1 sentence2006See, e.g., Estrada, 48 Cal.Rptr. 172 , 408 P.2d at 953 ("A legislative mitigation of the penalty for a particular crime represents a legislative judgment that the lesser penalty or the different treatment is sufficient to meet the legitimate ends of the criminal law.... [I]t is safe to assume, as the modern rule does, that it was the legislative design that the lighter penalty should be imposed in all cases that subsequently reach the courts.”); Litsey v. District Court, 193 Colo. 341 , 565 P.2d 1343, 1344 (1977) (defendant was entitled to the benefit of change in law reducing look-back for pr | 1 | 1 |
Wells v. Stategreen1 sentence2006State v. Andrews, 707 P.2d 900, 907 (Alaska App.1985), opinion adopted by State v. Andrews, 723 P.2d 85, 86 (Alaska 1986); see also Wells v. State, 706 P.2d 711,713 (Alaska App.1985) ("It is well established that, in accordance with the rule of lenity, ambiguities in penal statutes must be resolved in favor of the accused.”). 44 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Von Gelderngreen2 sentences2006See, e.g., Estrada, 48 Cal.Rptr. 172 , 408 P.2d at 953 ("A legislative mitigation of the penalty for a particular crime represents a legislative judgment that the lesser penalty or the different treatment is sufficient to meet the legitimate ends of the criminal law.... [I]t is safe to assume, as the modern rule does, that it was the legislative design that the lighter penalty should be imposed in all cases that subsequently reach the courts.”); Litsey v. District Court, 193 Colo. 341 , 565 P.2d 1343, 1344 (1977) (defendant was entitled to the benefit of change in law reducing look-back for pr 2006See, e.g., Estrada, 48 Cal.Rptr. 172 , 408 P.2d at 953 ("A legislative mitigation of the penalty for a particular crime represents a legislative judgment that the lesser penalty or the different treatment is sufficient to meet the legitimate ends of the criminal law.... [I]t is safe to assume, as the modern rule does, that it was the legislative design that the lighter penalty should be imposed in all cases that subsequently reach the courts.”); Litsey v. District Court, 193 Colo. 341 , 565 P.2d 1343, 1344 (1977) (defendant was entitled to the benefit of change in law reducing look-back for pr | 1 | 1 |
People v. Olivergreen2 sentences2006See, e.g., Estrada, 48 Cal.Rptr. 172 , 408 P.2d at 953 ("A legislative mitigation of the penalty for a particular crime represents a legislative judgment that the lesser penalty or the different treatment is sufficient to meet the legitimate ends of the criminal law.... [I]t is safe to assume, as the modern rule does, that it was the legislative design that the lighter penalty should be imposed in all cases that subsequently reach the courts.”); Litsey v. District Court, 193 Colo. 341 , 565 P.2d 1343, 1344 (1977) (defendant was entitled to the benefit of change in law reducing look-back for pr 2006See, e.g., Estrada, 48 Cal.Rptr. 172 , 408 P.2d at 953 ("A legislative mitigation of the penalty for a particular crime represents a legislative judgment that the lesser penalty or the different treatment is sufficient to meet the legitimate ends of the criminal law.... [I]t is safe to assume, as the modern rule does, that it was the legislative design that the lighter penalty should be imposed in all cases that subsequently reach the courts.”); Litsey v. District Court, 193 Colo. 341 , 565 P.2d 1343, 1344 (1977) (defendant was entitled to the benefit of change in law reducing look-back for pr | 1 | 1 |
State v. Andrewsgreen1 sentence2006State v. Andrews, 707 P.2d 900, 907 (Alaska App.1985), opinion adopted by State v. Andrews, 723 P.2d 85, 86 (Alaska 1986); see also Wells v. State, 706 P.2d 711,713 (Alaska App.1985) ("It is well established that, in accordance with the rule of lenity, ambiguities in penal statutes must be resolved in favor of the accused.”). 44 . | 1 | 1 |
Comer Blocker v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1970For example, the use of the term "product" created difficult problems of causation. [20] And as Judge (now Chief Justice) Burger complained, concurring in Blocker v. United States, 110 U.S.App.D.C. 41 , 288 F.2d 853, 860 (1960), the test in many cases put the legal determination in the hands of psychiatric witnesses rather than judge and jury. 1970For example, the use of the term "product" created difficult problems of causation. [20] And as Judge (now Chief Justice) Burger complained, concurring in Blocker v. United States, 110 U.S.App.D.C. 41 , 288 F.2d 853, 860 (1960), the test in many cases put the legal determination in the hands of psychiatric witnesses rather than judge and jury. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alaska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
MacPherson v. . Buick Motor Co.
green
2 sentences1998In those jurisdictions, a contractor is immune from liability under the "completion and acceptance doctrine": "`[W]here the work of an independent contractor is completed, turned over to, and accepted by the owner, the contractor is not liable to third persons for damages or injuries subsequently suffered by reason of the condition of the work, even though he was negligent in carrying out the contract.'" [9] This historically was the common law rule, but it has been so riddled with exceptions that most courts have now adopted the modern rule reflected in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 385 (19 1998In those jurisdictions, a contractor is immune from liability under the "completion and acceptance doctrine": "`[W]here the work of an independent contractor is completed, turned over to, and accepted by the owner, the contractor is not liable to third persons for damages or injuries subsequently suffered by reason of the condition of the work, even though he was negligent in carrying out the contract.'" [9] This historically was the common law rule, but it has been so riddled with exceptions that most courts have now adopted the modern rule reflected in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 385 (19 | 2 | 1998–1998 |
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.