case-by-case analysis in Alaska

2022The superior court addressed this concern, noting that a 106 Concerned Citizens of S. Kenai Peninsula v. Kenai Peninsula Borough, 527 P.2d 447, 452 (Alaska 1974). 107 Id. 108 Id. 109 Id. 110 Id. -34- 7609 “government’s tax structure must be objective, not subjective” and that if the statute used an effective tax rate, “Alaska’s use of the foreign country’s tax rate as an identification tool for tax haven countries would be thwarted because the inquiry would become corporation specific, requiring tax officials to analyze each and every corporate structure to determine whether the affiliated gro

2022The superior court addressed this concern, noting that a 106 Concerned Citizens of S. Kenai Peninsula v. Kenai Peninsula Borough, 527 P.2d 447, 452 (Alaska 1974). 107 Id. 108 Id. 109 Id. 110 Id. -34- 7609 “government’s tax structure must be objective, not subjective” and that if the statute used an effective tax rate, “Alaska’s use of the foreign country’s tax rate as an identification tool for tax haven countries would be thwarted because the inquiry would become corporation specific, requiring tax officials to analyze each and every corporate structure to determine whether the affiliated gro

2020Att’y Phila., 872 F.3d 152, 160-61 (3d Cir. 2017) (“The fact (continued...) – 15 – 2665 Here, Powell’s underlying post-conviction relief claim is that his trial counsel was ineffective and that this ineffective assistance of trial counsel deprived Powell of a favorable plea agreement that would have resulted in a significantly lower sentence than the one he received after trial.

2020P. 60(b)(6) is “identical with Alaska Civil Rule 60(b)(6)”). 42 See Cox, 757 F.3d at 122 (directing trial courts to apply a “flexible, multifactor approach to Rule 60(b)(6) motions” that takes into account “all the particulars of a movant’s case”); Miller v. Mays, 879 F.3d 691, 698 (6th Cir. 2018) (noting that “Rule 60(b)(6) motions necessitate ‘a case-by-case inquiry’ in which the district court ‘intensively balance[s] numerous factors, including the competing policies of the finality of judgments and the incessant command of the court’s conscience that justice be done in light of all the fac

2020P. 60(b)(6) is “identical with Alaska Civil Rule 60(b)(6)”). 42 See Cox, 757 F.3d at 122 (directing trial courts to apply a “flexible, multifactor approach to Rule 60(b)(6) motions” that takes into account “all the particulars of a movant’s case”); Miller v. Mays, 879 F.3d 691, 698 (6th Cir. 2018) (noting that “Rule 60(b)(6) motions necessitate ‘a case-by-case inquiry’ in which the district court ‘intensively balance[s] numerous factors, including the competing policies of the finality of judgments and the incessant command of the court’s conscience that justice be done in light of all the fac

2020P. 60(b)(6) is “identical with Alaska Civil Rule 60(b)(6)”). 42 See Cox, 757 F.3d at 122 (directing trial courts to apply a “flexible, multifactor approach to Rule 60(b)(6) motions” that takes into account “all the particulars of a movant’s case”); Miller v. Mays, 879 F.3d 691, 698 (6th Cir. 2018) (noting that “Rule 60(b)(6) motions necessitate ‘a case-by-case inquiry’ in which the district court ‘intensively balance[s] numerous factors, including the competing policies of the finality of judgments and the incessant command of the court’s conscience that justice be done in light of all the fac

2020P. 60(b)(6) is “identical with Alaska Civil Rule 60(b)(6)”). 42 See Cox, 757 F.3d at 122 (directing trial courts to apply a “flexible, multifactor approach to Rule 60(b)(6) motions” that takes into account “all the particulars of a movant’s case”); Miller v. Mays, 879 F.3d 691, 698 (6th Cir. 2018) (noting that “Rule 60(b)(6) motions necessitate ‘a case-by-case inquiry’ in which the district court ‘intensively balance[s] numerous factors, including the competing policies of the finality of judgments and the incessant command of the court’s conscience that justice be done in light of all the fac

2014Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 175 P.3d 1263, 1267 (Alaska 2008)). 7 Id. at 1104 (citing Ben M., 204 P.3d at 1018 ). -5- 1516 the Indian family and that those efforts were unsuccessful.”8 This is a case-by-case inquiry, and active efforts need not be perfect.9 “In general, active efforts will be found when OCS takes the client through the steps of the plan rather than requiring that the plan be performed on its own,”10 but not if “the client must develop his or her own resources towards bringing [the plan] to fruition.”11 “In assessing whether OCS met the active efforts requirement, a co

2014Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 175 P.3d 1263, 1267 (Alaska 2008)). 7 Id. at 1104 (citing Ben M., 204 P.3d at 1018 ). -5- 1516 the Indian family and that those efforts were unsuccessful.”8 This is a case-by-case inquiry, and active efforts need not be perfect.9 “In general, active efforts will be found when OCS takes the client through the steps of the plan rather than requiring that the plan be performed on its own,”10 but not if “the client must develop his or her own resources towards bringing [the plan] to fruition.”11 “In assessing whether OCS met the active efforts requirement, a co

2004See generally RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF JUDGMENTS § 83 (1982); Johnson v. State, Dep't of Fish & Game, 836 P.2d 896, 906-09 (Alaska 1991) ("a determination of the appropriate preclusive effect of administrative decisions is possible only on a case by case analysis"). [1] 991 P.2d 1263, 1266-67 (Alaska 1999). [2] 978 P.2d 86 , 88 n. 2, 89 (Alaska 1999); see also Martech Constr.

2004See generally RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF JUDGMENTS § 83 (1982); Johnson v. State, Dep't of Fish & Game, 836 P.2d 896, 906-09 (Alaska 1991) ("a determination of the appropriate preclusive effect of administrative decisions is possible only on a case by case analysis"). [1] 991 P.2d 1263, 1266-67 (Alaska 1999). [2] 978 P.2d 86 , 88 n. 2, 89 (Alaska 1999); see also Martech Constr.

2004See generally Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 83 (1982); Johnson v. State, Dep't of Fish & Game, 836 P.2d 896, 906-09 (Alaska 1991) ("a determination of the appropriate pre-clusive effect of administrative decisions is possible only on a case by case analysis”).

1983See United States v. Rogers, 549 F.2d 490, 500 (8th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 918 , 97 S.Ct. 2182 , 53 L.Ed.2d 229 (1977). [7] The *1053 relevant factual inquiry in such an analysis is whether, under the circumstances, the jury will be afforded a satisfactory basis for evaluating the truth of the out-of-court statement.

1983See United States v. Rogers, 549 F.2d 490, 500 (8th Cir.1976), cert, denied, 431 U.S. 918 , 97 S.Ct. 2182 , 53 L.Ed.2d 229 (1977). 7 The relevant factual inquiry in such an analysis is whether, under the circumstances, the jury will be afforded a satisfactory basis for evaluating the truth of the out-of-court statement.

1983See United States v. Rogers, 549 F.2d 490, 500 (8th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 918 , 97 S.Ct. 2182 , 53 L.Ed.2d 229 (1977). [7] The *1053 relevant factual inquiry in such an analysis is whether, under the circumstances, the jury will be afforded a satisfactory basis for evaluating the truth of the out-of-court statement.

1983See United States v. Rogers, 549 F.2d 490, 500 (8th Cir.1976), cert, denied, 431 U.S. 918 , 97 S.Ct. 2182 , 53 L.Ed.2d 229 (1977). 7 The relevant factual inquiry in such an analysis is whether, under the circumstances, the jury will be afforded a satisfactory basis for evaluating the truth of the out-of-court statement.

1983See United States v. Rogers, 549 F.2d 490, 500 (8th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 918 , 97 S.Ct. 2182 , 53 L.Ed.2d 229 (1977). [7] The *1053 relevant factual inquiry in such an analysis is whether, under the circumstances, the jury will be afforded a satisfactory basis for evaluating the truth of the out-of-court statement.

1983See United States v. Rogers, 549 F.2d 490, 500 (8th Cir.1976), cert, denied, 431 U.S. 918 , 97 S.Ct. 2182 , 53 L.Ed.2d 229 (1977). 7 The relevant factual inquiry in such an analysis is whether, under the circumstances, the jury will be afforded a satisfactory basis for evaluating the truth of the out-of-court statement.

1983See United States v. Rogers, 549 F.2d 490, 500 (8th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 918 , 97 S.Ct. 2182 , 53 L.Ed.2d 229 (1977). [7] The *1053 relevant factual inquiry in such an analysis is whether, under the circumstances, the jury will be afforded a satisfactory basis for evaluating the truth of the out-of-court statement.

1983See United States v. Rogers, 549 F.2d 490, 500 (8th Cir.1976), cert, denied, 431 U.S. 918 , 97 S.Ct. 2182 , 53 L.Ed.2d 229 (1977). 7 The relevant factual inquiry in such an analysis is whether, under the circumstances, the jury will be afforded a satisfactory basis for evaluating the truth of the out-of-court statement.