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 1 courts 1971–2023 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Powell v. Tannergreen1 sentence2023The court then granted Welty’s initial summary judgment motion 19 (...continued) 4-5, 2018), https://labor.alaska.gov/wc/forms/2018-10-Board_Meeting_Minutes.pdf. 20 See Powell v. Tanner, 59 P.3d 246, 248-50 (Alaska 2002) (adopting independent contractor test from Restatement of Agency to determine whether tortfeasor’s employer was liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior). 21 Benson v. City of Nenana, 725 P.2d 490 (Alaska 1986). -6- 7649 dismissing the case,22 and decided that all the pending motions, including the Rule of Law motion, were moot. | 1 | 1 |
Wainscott v. Ossenkopgreen1 sentence2001See Wainscott v. Ossenkop, 633 P.2d 237, 240 (Alaska 1981). 45 . | 1 | 1 |
Winn v. Mannhaltergreen1 sentence2001See Coulson v. Marsh & McLennan, Inc., 973 P.2d 1142 , 1147 n. 9 (Alaska 1999) ("A master is subject to liability for the torts of his servants commited while acting in the scope of their employment.") (quoting Restatement (Second) of Agency § 219(1) (1958)); Winn v. Mannhalter, 708 P.2d 444, 451 (Alaska 1985) ("A broker is liable for the actions of his agents under the doctrine of respondeat superior."); City of Delta Junction v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 670 P.2d 1128, 1129 (Alaska 1983) (principal is liable for acts of agent or apparent agent, including liability for breach of warranty). 44 . | 1 | 1 |
City of Delta Junction v. MacK Trucks, Inc.green1 sentence2001See Coulson v. Marsh & McLennan, Inc., 973 P.2d 1142 , 1147 n. 9 (Alaska 1999) ("A master is subject to liability for the torts of his servants commited while acting in the scope of their employment.") (quoting Restatement (Second) of Agency § 219(1) (1958)); Winn v. Mannhalter, 708 P.2d 444, 451 (Alaska 1985) ("A broker is liable for the actions of his agents under the doctrine of respondeat superior."); City of Delta Junction v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 670 P.2d 1128, 1129 (Alaska 1983) (principal is liable for acts of agent or apparent agent, including liability for breach of warranty). 44 . | 1 | 1 |
Coulson v. Marsh & McLennan, Inc.green1 sentence2001See Coulson v. Marsh & McLennan, Inc., 973 P.2d 1142 , 1147 n. 9 (Alaska 1999) ("A master is subject to liability for the torts of his servants commited while acting in the scope of their employment.") (quoting Restatement (Second) of Agency § 219(1) (1958)); Winn v. Mannhalter, 708 P.2d 444, 451 (Alaska 1985) ("A broker is liable for the actions of his agents under the doctrine of respondeat superior."); City of Delta Junction v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 670 P.2d 1128, 1129 (Alaska 1983) (principal is liable for acts of agent or apparent agent, including liability for breach of warranty). 44 . | 1 | 1 |
Fruit v. Schreinergreen1 sentence1982Bing v. Thuning, 2 N.Y.2d 656 , 163 N.Y.S.2d 3 , 143 N.E.2d 3 (N.Y. 1957); see Fruit v. Schreiner, 502 P.2d 133, 138-42 (Alaska 1972). | 1 | 1 |
Crawford v. Rogersgreen1 sentence1971Cf. Mallonee v. Finch, 413 P.2d 159, 161 (Alaska 1966); Crawford v. Rogers, 406 P.2d 189, 194 (Alaska 1965); McCoy v. Alaska Brick Co., 389 P.2d 1009 -1010 (Alaska 1964). 13 . | 1 | 1 |
Mallonee v. Finchgreen1 sentence1971Cf. Mallonee v. Finch, 413 P.2d 159, 161 (Alaska 1966); Crawford v. Rogers, 406 P.2d 189, 194 (Alaska 1965); McCoy v. Alaska Brick Co., 389 P.2d 1009 -1010 (Alaska 1964). 13 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alaska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Benson v. City of Nenana
green
1 sentence2023The court then granted Welty’s initial summary judgment motion 19 (...continued) 4-5, 2018), https://labor.alaska.gov/wc/forms/2018-10-Board_Meeting_Minutes.pdf. 20 See Powell v. Tanner, 59 P.3d 246, 248-50 (Alaska 2002) (adopting independent contractor test from Restatement of Agency to determine whether tortfeasor’s employer was liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior). 21 Benson v. City of Nenana, 725 P.2d 490 (Alaska 1986). -6- 7649 dismissing the case,22 and decided that all the pending motions, including the Rule of Law motion, were moot. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Prentzel v. State, Department of Public Safety
green
1 sentence2010Safety, 53 P.3d 587 , 595 n. 46 (Alaska 2002). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Williams v. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co.
green
2 sentences1990Subsequently, in Williams v. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co., 650 P.2d 343 (Alaska 1982), we referred to the criteria set forth in § 228 of the Second Restatement as “guidelines which are useful in making ... the determination as to when an employee’s tort will be attributed to the employer.” Id. at 349. 1990Subsequently, in Williams v. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co., 650 P.2d 343 (Alaska 1982), we referred to the criteria set forth in § 228 of the Second Restatement as "guidelines which are useful in making ... the determination as to when an employee's tort will be attributed to the employer." Id. at 349. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Black v. Dahl
green
1 sentence1985Black v. Dahl, 625 P.2d 876 , 879 n.3 (Alaska 1981). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Bing v. Thunig
green
2 sentences1982Bing v. Thuning, 2 N.Y.2d 656 , 163 N.Y.S.2d 3 , 143 N.E.2d 3 (N.Y. 1957); see Fruit v. Schreiner, 502 P.2d 133, 138-42 (Alaska 1972). 1982Bing v. Thuning, 2 N.Y.2d 656 , 163 N.Y.S.2d 3 , 143 N.E.2d 3 (N.Y. 1957); see Fruit v. Schreiner, 502 P.2d 133, 138-42 (Alaska 1972). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
McCoy v. Alaska Brick Co.
green
1 sentence1971Cf. Mallonee v. Finch, 413 P.2d 159, 161 (Alaska 1966); Crawford v. Rogers, 406 P.2d 189, 194 (Alaska 1965); McCoy v. Alaska Brick Co., 389 P.2d 1009 -1010 (Alaska 1964). 13 . | 1 | 1971–1971 |
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.