applicant rule (Alaska) · Go Syfert
← Alaska issues

applicant rule in Alaska

7 Alaska opinions name it 2 courts 1971–2025 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 (8)

CaseFollowedCited
Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners of NMgreen
scotus · 1957 · cited in 2 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 1971–2009
2 sentences

2009See Conn v. Gabbert, 526 U.S. 286, 291-92 , 119 S.Ct. 1292 , 143 L.Ed.2d 399 (1999) ("[T]his Court has indicated that the liberty component of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause includes some generalized due process right to choose one's field of private employment, but a right which is nevertheless subject to reasonable government regulation.”); Schware v. Bd. of Bar Exam'rs, 353 U.S. 232, 239 , 77 S.Ct. 752 , 1 L.Ed.2d 796 (1957) ("A State can require high standards of qualification, such as good moral character or proficiency in its law, before it admits an applicant to the bar,

2009See Conn v. Gabbert, 526 U.S. 286, 291-92 , 119 S.Ct. 1292 , 143 L.Ed.2d 399 (1999) ("[T]his Court has indicated that the liberty component of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause includes some generalized due process right to choose one's field of private employment, but a right which is nevertheless subject to reasonable government regulation.”); Schware v. Bd. of Bar Exam'rs, 353 U.S. 232, 239 , 77 S.Ct. 752 , 1 L.Ed.2d 796 (1957) ("A State can require high standards of qualification, such as good moral character or proficiency in its law, before it admits an applicant to the bar,

12
Merrill v. Stategreen
alaska · 1969 · cited in 2 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 1971–1972
2 sentences

1972Any ground finally adjudicated or not so raised, or knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived in the proceeding that resulted in the conviction or sentence or in any other proceeding the applicant has taken to secure relief may not be the basis for a subsequent application, unless the court finds a ground for relief asserted which for sufficient reason was not asserted or was inadequately raised in the original, supplemental, or amended application. . 457 P.2d at 238 . .

1972The order made by the court is a final judgment. [6] 457 P.2d 231 (Alaska 1969). [7] Alaska R.Crim.P. 35(i) provides: All grounds for relief available to an applicant under this rule must be raised in his original, supplemental or amended application.

12
Keller v. Frenchgreen
alaska · 2009 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025
1 sentence

2025(Emphasis added.) But 22 AAC 20.150(n) provides that “[a]n attorney may represent the applicant at the hearing,” though it disclaims any responsibility of the Parole Board or Department of Corrections to arrange or pay for such representation. 38 22 AAC 20.100(b) (“[T]he board will not permit the appearance of witnesses at discretionary parole hearings,” except that “[t]he board may make a rare exception due to exigent circumstances.”). 39 See Keller v. French, 205 P.3d 299, 302 (Alaska 2009) (noting “courts should not resolve abstract questions or issue advisory opinions”). – 11 – 2811 Judge

11
Conn v. Gabbertgreen
scotus · 1999 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009
2 sentences

2009See Conn v. Gabbert, 526 U.S. 286, 291-92 , 119 S.Ct. 1292 , 143 L.Ed.2d 399 (1999) ("[T]his Court has indicated that the liberty component of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause includes some generalized due process right to choose one's field of private employment, but a right which is nevertheless subject to reasonable government regulation.”); Schware v. Bd. of Bar Exam'rs, 353 U.S. 232, 239 , 77 S.Ct. 752 , 1 L.Ed.2d 796 (1957) ("A State can require high standards of qualification, such as good moral character or proficiency in its law, before it admits an applicant to the bar,

2009See Conn v. Gabbert, 526 U.S. 286, 291-92 , 119 S.Ct. 1292 , 143 L.Ed.2d 399 (1999) ("[T]his Court has indicated that the liberty component of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause includes some generalized due process right to choose one's field of private employment, but a right which is nevertheless subject to reasonable government regulation.”); Schware v. Bd. of Bar Exam'rs, 353 U.S. 232, 239 , 77 S.Ct. 752 , 1 L.Ed.2d 796 (1957) ("A State can require high standards of qualification, such as good moral character or proficiency in its law, before it admits an applicant to the bar,

11
Roy Richard Dittman v. State of California State and Consumer Affairs Agency Medical Board of California Acupuncture Committee and Marilyn Nielsengreen
ca9 · 1999 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009
1 sentence

2009See Conn v. Gabbert, 526 U.S. 286, 291-92 , 119 S.Ct. 1292 , 143 L.Ed.2d 399 (1999) ("[T]his Court has indicated that the liberty component of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause includes some generalized due process right to choose one's field of private employment, but a right which is nevertheless subject to reasonable government regulation.”); Schware v. Bd. of Bar Exam'rs, 353 U.S. 232, 239 , 77 S.Ct. 752 , 1 L.Ed.2d 796 (1957) ("A State can require high standards of qualification, such as good moral character or proficiency in its law, before it admits an applicant to the bar,

11
Union Oil Co. of California v. State, Department of Natural Resourcesgreen
alaska · 1974 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 1984–1984
1 sentence

1984Although in Forquer we recognized the right of an applicant to a hearing after a Commission determination on additional evidence, that holding does not establish that such a hearing is a prerequisite to judicial review on the merits of the Commission’s determination. “[Tjhere are situations in which one may possess the alternatives of either seeking judicial review directly from a decision of the [agency] or seeking review by the [agency] and then invoking judicial review.” Union Oil Company of California v. State, Department of Natural Resources, 526 P.2d 1357, 1365 (Alaska 1974).

11
Sanders v. United Statesgreen
scotus · 1963 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 1972–1972
2 sentences

1972Any ground finally adjudicated or not so raised, or knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived in the proceeding that resulted in the conviction or sentence or in any other proceeding the applicant has taken to secure relief may not be the basis for a subsequent application, unless the court finds a ground for relief asserted which for sufficient reason was not asserted or was inadequately raised in the original, supplemental, or amended application. [8] 457 P.2d at 238 . [9] Id. [10] 445 P.2d 815 (Alaska 1968). [11] Cf. Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 17 , 83 S.Ct. 1068 , 10 L.Ed.2

1972Any ground finally adjudicated or not so raised, or knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived in the proceeding that resulted in the conviction or sentence or in any other proceeding the applicant has taken to secure relief may not be the basis for a subsequent application, unless the court finds a ground for relief asserted which for sufficient reason was not asserted or was inadequately raised in the original, supplemental, or amended application. [8] 457 P.2d at 238 . [9] Id. [10] 445 P.2d 815 (Alaska 1968). [11] Cf. Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 17 , 83 S.Ct. 1068 , 10 L.Ed.2

11
Green v. Stategreen
alaska · 1964 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 1972–1972
1 sentence

1972Any ground finally adjudicated or not so raised, or knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived in the proceeding that resulted in the conviction or sentence or in any other proceeding the applicant has taken to secure relief may not be the basis for a subsequent application, unless the court finds a ground for relief asserted which for sufficient reason was not asserted or was inadequately raised in the original, supplemental, or amended application. [8] 457 P.2d at 238 . [9] Id. [10] 445 P.2d 815 (Alaska 1968). [11] Cf. Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 17 , 83 S.Ct. 1068 , 10 L.Ed.2

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 (2)

CaseCitedYears
United States v. Malinowski green
paed · 1972
2 sentences

1985Malinowski made the false claims as a means of protesting the Vietnam war, with full knowledge that he was unentitled to the additional exemptions. 347 F.Supp. at 350 . . 20 AAC 05.650(c) states: To use the special showing provisions in 20 AAC 05.630(a)(5) (for past participation), 20 AAC 05.630(b)(2) (for income dependence), and 20 AAC 05.630(b)(4)(D) (for availability of alternative occupations), an applicant must claim a specific number of points and must submit documentation of the facts and circumstance surrounding the claim along with his application for an entry permit.

1985Kjarstad alleges that the Washington applications were filled out for him in his absence by his employer, Wards Cove Packing Company, which was not aware of his move to Alaska. [6] Malinowski made the false claims as a means of protesting the Vietnam war, with full knowledge that he was unentitled to the additional exemptions. 347 F. Supp. at 350 . [7] 20 AAC 05.650(c) states: To use the special showing provisions in 20 AAC 05.630(a)(5) (for past participation), 20 AAC 05.630(b)(2) (for income dependence), and 20 AAC 05.630(b)(4)(D) (for availability of alternative occupations), an applicant m

11985–1985
Faulkner v. State green
alaska · 1968
1 sentence

1972Any ground finally adjudicated or not so raised, or knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived in the proceeding that resulted in the conviction or sentence or in any other proceeding the applicant has taken to secure relief may not be the basis for a subsequent application, unless the court finds a ground for relief asserted which for sufficient reason was not asserted or was inadequately raised in the original, supplemental, or amended application. [8] 457 P.2d at 238 . [9] Id. [10] 445 P.2d 815 (Alaska 1968). [11] Cf. Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 17 , 83 S.Ct. 1068 , 10 L.Ed.2

11972–1972

Where else courts name it

TX 286 (1926–2026) VT 30 (1961–2025) MD 18 (1958–2017) CA 14 (1925–2024) CT 12 (1988–2010) NY 12 (1929–2015) IA 9 (1933–2022) PA 8 (1905–2025) IL 8 (1973–2021) MA 8 (1992–2024) NJ 7 (1949–2017) NE 7 (1904–2002) ND 7 (1964–2019) AK 7 (1971–2025) OH 6 (1986–2025) MO 6 (1913–2010) RI 5 (1967–2017) FL 4 (1978–1998) WA 4 (2006–2009) UT 3 (1983–2017) NC 3 (1984–2008) IN 3 (1897–2013) GA 3 (1949–1982) OK 3 (1901–1971) CO 3 (1998–2018) ME 3 (1988–2021) SD 3 (1959–2013) LA 3 (1973–1994) OR 2 (1899–1999) DE 2 (1962–2022) VA 2 (1979–1987) AR 2 (2004–2016) MN 2 (1944–1978) WV 2 (2005–2017) WI 2 (1930–1991) AZ 2 (1914–2020)

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