7 Alaska opinions name it 1 courts 1979–1994 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 |
|---|---|---|
Smith v. Owensgreen1 sentence1982Eliason v. Watts, 615 P.2d 427, 430 (Utah 1980); Ellis v. Mihelis, 60 Cal.2d 206 , 32 Cal.Rptr. 415, 423 , 384 P.2d 7, 15 (1963); Re v. Wells Fargo Bank, 269 Cal.App.2d 783 , 75 Cal.Rptr. 367, 371 (1969); Smith v. Owens, 397 P.2d 673, 679-80 (Okl.1963); Annot., 7 A.L.R.2d 1204 , 1222 (1949). | 1 | 1 |
Eliason v. Wattsgreen1 sentence1982Eliason v. Watts, 615 P.2d 427, 430 (Utah 1980); Ellis v. Mihelis, 60 Cal.2d 206 , 32 Cal.Rptr. 415, 423 , 384 P.2d 7, 15 (1963); Re v. Wells Fargo Bank, 269 Cal.App.2d 783 , 75 Cal.Rptr. 367, 371 (1969); Smith v. Owens, 397 P.2d 673, 679-80 (Okl.1963); Annot., 7 A.L.R.2d 1204 , 1222 (1949). | 1 | 1 |
Re v. Wells Fargo Bankgreen2 sentences1982Eliason v. Watts, 615 P.2d 427, 430 (Utah 1980); Ellis v. Mihelis, 60 Cal.2d 206 , 32 Cal.Rptr. 415, 423 , 384 P.2d 7, 15 (1963); Re v. Wells Fargo Bank, 269 Cal.App.2d 783 , 75 Cal.Rptr. 367, 371 (1969); Smith v. Owens, 397 P.2d 673, 679-80 (Okl.1963); Annot., 7 A.L.R.2d 1204 , 1222 (1949). 1982Eliason v. Watts, 615 P.2d 427, 430 (Utah 1980); Ellis v. Mihelis, 60 Cal.2d 206 , 32 Cal.Rptr. 415, 423 , 384 P.2d 7, 15 (1963); Re v. Wells Fargo Bank, 269 Cal.App.2d 783 , 75 Cal.Rptr. 367, 371 (1969); Smith v. Owens, 397 P.2d 673, 679-80 (Okl.1963); Annot., 7 A.L.R.2d 1204 , 1222 (1949). | 1 | 1 |
Ellis v. Mihelisgreen2 sentences1982Eliason v. Watts, 615 P.2d 427, 430 (Utah 1980); Ellis v. Mihelis, 60 Cal.2d 206 , 32 Cal.Rptr. 415, 423 , 384 P.2d 7, 15 (1963); Re v. Wells Fargo Bank, 269 Cal.App.2d 783 , 75 Cal.Rptr. 367, 371 (1969); Smith v. Owens, 397 P.2d 673, 679-80 (Okl.1963); Annot., 7 A.L.R.2d 1204 , 1222 (1949). 1982Eliason v. Watts, 615 P.2d 427, 430 (Utah 1980); Ellis v. Mihelis, 60 Cal.2d 206 , 32 Cal.Rptr. 415, 423 , 384 P.2d 7, 15 (1963); Re v. Wells Fargo Bank, 269 Cal.App.2d 783 , 75 Cal.Rptr. 367, 371 (1969); Smith v. Owens, 397 P.2d 673, 679-80 (Okl.1963); Annot., 7 A.L.R.2d 1204 , 1222 (1949). | 1 | 1 |
Trammel v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1980See Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40 , 100 S.Ct. 906 , 63 L.Ed.2d 186 (1980); Hawkins v. United States, 358 U.S. 74, 77 , 79 S.Ct. 136, 138 , 3 L.Ed.2d 125, 128 (1958). 4 When evidence that a marriage is in fact destroyed is as conclusive as it is in the present case, the policy behind the privilege is no longer served by its application. 1980See Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40 , 100 S.Ct. 906 , 63 L.Ed.2d 186 (1980); Hawkins v. United States, 358 U.S. 74, 77 , 79 S.Ct. 136, 138 , 3 L.Ed.2d 125, 128 (1958). 4 When evidence that a marriage is in fact destroyed is as conclusive as it is in the present case, the policy behind the privilege is no longer served by its application. | 1 | 1 |
Hawkins v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1980See Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40 , 100 S.Ct. 906 , 63 L.Ed.2d 186 (1980); Hawkins v. United States, 358 U.S. 74, 77 , 79 S.Ct. 136, 138 , 3 L.Ed.2d 125, 128 (1958). 4 When evidence that a marriage is in fact destroyed is as conclusive as it is in the present case, the policy behind the privilege is no longer served by its application. 1980See Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40 , 100 S.Ct. 906 , 63 L.Ed.2d 186 (1980); Hawkins v. United States, 358 U.S. 74, 77 , 79 S.Ct. 136, 138 , 3 L.Ed.2d 125, 128 (1958). 4 When evidence that a marriage is in fact destroyed is as conclusive as it is in the present case, the policy behind the privilege is no longer served by its application. | 1 | 1 |
Greater Anchorage Area Borough v. City of Anchoragegreen1 sentence1979Plumbing & Heating, Inc., 441 P.2d 122, 123 (Alaska 1968). 9 .We have previously explained the rationale behind the doctrine of primary jurisdiction in Greater Anchorage Area Borough v. City of Anchorage, 504 P.2d 1027, 1032-33 (Alaska 1972) (footnotes omitted): Under the so-called “doctrine of primary jurisdiction”, a court may, in appropriate cases, stay or dismiss pending litigation so as to enable a proper agency to initially pass upon an aspect of the case calling for administrative expertise. | 1 | 1 |
Nordin Construction Co. v. Whitney Brothers Plumbing & Heating, Inc.green1 sentence1979Plumbing & Heating, Inc., 441 P.2d 122, 123 (Alaska 1968). 9 .We have previously explained the rationale behind the doctrine of primary jurisdiction in Greater Anchorage Area Borough v. City of Anchorage, 504 P.2d 1027, 1032-33 (Alaska 1972) (footnotes omitted): Under the so-called “doctrine of primary jurisdiction”, a court may, in appropriate cases, stay or dismiss pending litigation so as to enable a proper agency to initially pass upon an aspect of the case calling for administrative expertise. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alaska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Authier v. Ginsberg
green
1 sentence1994In Authier , the court discussed the rationale behind the rule that state retaliatory discharge and whistle blower claims are preempted by the “comprehensive enforcement scheme” provided by ERISA. 757 F.2d at 801 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Interior Credit Bureau, Inc. v. Bussing
green
1 sentence1991The rationale behind the rule is that “Stipulations and settlements are favored in law because they simplify, shorten and settle litigation without taking up valuable court resources.” Interior Credit Bureau, 559 P.2d at 106 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Bradshaw v. Miller
neutral
2 sentences1983The rationale behind this exception was explained in Bradshaw v. Miller, 14 Utah 2d 82 , 377 P.2d 781 (Utah 1963): Recording of notice of location can serve only the purpose of notifying others of the facts of location. 1983The rationale behind this exception was explained in Bradshaw v. Miller, 14 Utah 2d 82 , 377 P.2d 781 (Utah 1963): Recording of notice of location can serve only the purpose of notifying others of the facts of location. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Bias v. Montgomery Elevator Co. of Kansas, Inc.
green
1 sentence1981In Bias the court stated: “The rationale behind the doctrine is said to be that when the defendant has exclusive control of the instrumentality *796 he has it within his power to produce evidence of the cause of the injury, while the plaintiff is without such knowledge and must therefore rely on proof of the circumstances.” 532 P.2d at 1056 . | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.