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.
7 Alaska opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2023 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Browngreen2 sentences2022Circuit, United States v. Ammidown, as one of the rare cases that does discuss this issue.73 In Ammidown, the court held that a trial judge should not reject a plea bargain unless the judge “can say that the action of the prosecuting attorney is such a departure from sound 71 See In re Morgan, 506 F.3d 705, 710 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[N]owhere does [Federal Criminal] Rule 11 define the criteria by which a district court should exercise the discretion the rule confers, or explain how a district court should determine whether to accept a plea agreement.”); see also State v. Hager, 630 N.W.2d 828, 833 2022Circuit, United States v. Ammidown, as one of the rare cases that does discuss this issue.73 In Ammidown, the court held that a trial judge should not reject a plea bargain unless the judge “can say that the action of the prosecuting attorney is such a departure from sound 71 See In re Morgan, 506 F.3d 705, 710 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[N]owhere does [Federal Criminal] Rule 11 define the criteria by which a district court should exercise the discretion the rule confers, or explain how a district court should determine whether to accept a plea agreement.”); see also State v. Hager, 630 N.W.2d 828, 833 | 2 | 2 |
State v. Hagergreen2 sentences2022Circuit, United States v. Ammidown, as one of the rare cases that does discuss this issue.73 In Ammidown, the court held that a trial judge should not reject a plea bargain unless the judge “can say that the action of the prosecuting attorney is such a departure from sound 71 See In re Morgan, 506 F.3d 705, 710 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[N]owhere does [Federal Criminal] Rule 11 define the criteria by which a district court should exercise the discretion the rule confers, or explain how a district court should determine whether to accept a plea agreement.”); see also State v. Hager, 630 N.W.2d 828, 833 2022Circuit, United States v. Ammidown, as one of the rare cases that does discuss this issue.73 In Ammidown, the court held that a trial judge should not reject a plea bargain unless the judge “can say that the action of the prosecuting attorney is such a departure from sound 71 See In re Morgan, 506 F.3d 705, 710 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[N]owhere does [Federal Criminal] Rule 11 define the criteria by which a district court should exercise the discretion the rule confers, or explain how a district court should determine whether to accept a plea agreement.”); see also State v. Hager, 630 N.W.2d 828, 833 | 2 | 2 |
In Re Morgangreen2 sentences2022Circuit, United States v. Ammidown, as one of the rare cases that does discuss this issue.73 In Ammidown, the court held that a trial judge should not reject a plea bargain unless the judge “can say that the action of the prosecuting attorney is such a departure from sound 71 See In re Morgan, 506 F.3d 705, 710 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[N]owhere does [Federal Criminal] Rule 11 define the criteria by which a district court should exercise the discretion the rule confers, or explain how a district court should determine whether to accept a plea agreement.”); see also State v. Hager, 630 N.W.2d 828, 833 2022Circuit, United States v. Ammidown, as one of the rare cases that does discuss this issue.73 In Ammidown, the court held that a trial judge should not reject a plea bargain unless the judge “can say that the action of the prosecuting attorney is such a departure from sound 71 See In re Morgan, 506 F.3d 705, 710 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[N]owhere does [Federal Criminal] Rule 11 define the criteria by which a district court should exercise the discretion the rule confers, or explain how a district court should determine whether to accept a plea agreement.”); see also State v. Hager, 630 N.W.2d 828, 833 | 2 | 2 |
Tongass Sport Fishing Ass'n v. Stategreen2 sentences2001What we recently stated in Tongass Sport Fishing Association v. State, 866 P.2d 1314, 1318 (Alaska 1994), is also applicable to the current case: We have held that the "common use" clause of article VIII, section 8, the "no exclusive right of fishery" clause of seetion 15, and the "uniform application" clause of section 17 are not implicated unless limits are placed on the admission to resource user groups. 39 The basis for the classification contained in these CUAs is the type of equipment used, aircraft in the case of Noatak, and airboats in Nenana. 1995What we recently stated in Tongass Sport Fishing Ass’n v. State, 866 P.2d 1314,1318 (Alaska 1994), is also applicable to the current case: We have held that the “common use” clause of article VIII, section 3, the “no exclusive right of fishery” clause of section 15, and the “uniform application” clause of section 17 are not implicated unless limits are placed on the admission to resource user groups. | 2 | 2 |
Ward v. State, Department of Public Safetygreen1 sentence2023Safety, 288 P.3d 94, 99 (Alaska 2012) (“The legislature’s specific directive that only those individuals with ‘previous’ convictions for certain offenses would be subject to sex offender status [under ASORA] demonstrates that it did not intend to impose an equivalent requirement for those convicted of different sex offenses.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kenaitze Indian Tribegreen1 sentence2012See State v. Kenaitze Indian Tribe, 894 P.2d 632, 640-41 (Alaska 1995) ("Inconvenience is in no sense the equivalent of a bar to eligibility for participation in subsistence hunting and fishing and does not suffice to trigger an analysis under the equal access clauses.... | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Estate of Brandongreen1 sentence1997In re Estate of Brandon, 902 P.2d 1299, 1310 (Alaska 1995). 12 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alaska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McDowell v. State
green
1 sentence2012The fact that residents of nonsubsistence areas must travel in order to utilize subsistence permits is not a limitation to their admission to a user group."). . 696 P.2d 168 (Alaska 1985) (regulation limiting subsistence uses to uses by rural residents inconsistent with authorizing statute). . 836 P.2d 358 (Alaska 1992) (the Board lacked statutory authority to adopt eligibility criteria for first tier subsistence users). . 785 P.2d 1 (Alaska 1989) (statute limiting subsistence users to rural residents unconstitutional under article VIII). . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Madison v. Alaska Department of Fish & Game
green
1 sentence2012The fact that residents of nonsubsistence areas must travel in order to utilize subsistence permits is not a limitation to their admission to a user group."). . 696 P.2d 168 (Alaska 1985) (regulation limiting subsistence uses to uses by rural residents inconsistent with authorizing statute). . 836 P.2d 358 (Alaska 1992) (the Board lacked statutory authority to adopt eligibility criteria for first tier subsistence users). . 785 P.2d 1 (Alaska 1989) (statute limiting subsistence users to rural residents unconstitutional under article VIII). . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Morry
green
1 sentence2012The fact that residents of nonsubsistence areas must travel in order to utilize subsistence permits is not a limitation to their admission to a user group."). . 696 P.2d 168 (Alaska 1985) (regulation limiting subsistence uses to uses by rural residents inconsistent with authorizing statute). . 836 P.2d 358 (Alaska 1992) (the Board lacked statutory authority to adopt eligibility criteria for first tier subsistence users). . 785 P.2d 1 (Alaska 1989) (statute limiting subsistence users to rural residents unconstitutional under article VIII). . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.