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 1995–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Holt v. Powellgreen2 sentences2014The Szabos’ belief that the 17 The Szabos do not clearly tie their arguments on appeal to the specific reasons justifying relief under Rule 60(b), but their due process argument most clearly supports a Rule 60(b)(4) argument that the superior court’s order is void. 18 Leisnoi, Inc. v. Merdes & Merdes, P.C., 307 P.3d 879, 891 (Alaska 2013) (citing Holt v. Powell, 420 P.2d 468, 471 (Alaska 1966)). 19 Blaufuss v. Ball, 305 P.3d 281, 285 (Alaska 2013) (quoting Cook v. Cook, 249 P.3d 1070, 1083 (Alaska 2011)). 20 Leisnoi, Inc., 307 P.3d at 891. -9- 6873 hearing would only be a status hearing is dif 2014The Szabos’ belief that the 17 The Szabos do not clearly tie their arguments on appeal to the specific reasons justifying relief under Rule 60(b), but their due process argument most clearly supports a Rule 60(b)(4) argument that the superior court’s order is void. 18 Leisnoi, Inc. v. Merdes & Merdes, P.C., 307 P.3d 879, 891 (Alaska 2013) (citing Holt v. Powell, 420 P.2d 468, 471 (Alaska 1966)). 19 Blaufuss v. Ball, 305 P.3d 281, 285 (Alaska 2013) (quoting Cook v. Cook, 249 P.3d 1070, 1083 (Alaska 2011)). 20 Leisnoi, Inc., 307 P.3d at 891. -9- 6873 hearing would only be a status hearing is dif | 2 | 2 |
Cook v. Cookgreen2 sentences2014The Szabos’ belief that the 17 The Szabos do not clearly tie their arguments on appeal to the specific reasons justifying relief under Rule 60(b), but their due process argument most clearly supports a Rule 60(b)(4) argument that the superior court’s order is void. 18 Leisnoi, Inc. v. Merdes & Merdes, P.C., 307 P.3d 879, 891 (Alaska 2013) (citing Holt v. Powell, 420 P.2d 468, 471 (Alaska 1966)). 19 Blaufuss v. Ball, 305 P.3d 281, 285 (Alaska 2013) (quoting Cook v. Cook, 249 P.3d 1070, 1083 (Alaska 2011)). 20 Leisnoi, Inc., 307 P.3d at 891. -9- 6873 hearing would only be a status hearing is dif 2014The Szabos’ belief that the 17 The Szabos do not clearly tie their arguments on appeal to the specific reasons justifying relief under Rule 60(b), but their due process argument most clearly supports a Rule 60(b)(4) argument that the superior court’s order is void. 18 Leisnoi, Inc. v. Merdes & Merdes, P.C., 307 P.3d 879, 891 (Alaska 2013) (citing Holt v. Powell, 420 P.2d 468, 471 (Alaska 1966)). 19 Blaufuss v. Ball, 305 P.3d 281, 285 (Alaska 2013) (quoting Cook v. Cook, 249 P.3d 1070, 1083 (Alaska 2011)). 20 Leisnoi, Inc., 307 P.3d at 891. -9- 6873 hearing would only be a status hearing is dif | 2 | 2 |
Leisnoi, Inc. v. Merdes & Merdes, P.C.green2 sentences2014The Szabos’ belief that the 17 The Szabos do not clearly tie their arguments on appeal to the specific reasons justifying relief under Rule 60(b), but their due process argument most clearly supports a Rule 60(b)(4) argument that the superior court’s order is void. 18 Leisnoi, Inc. v. Merdes & Merdes, P.C., 307 P.3d 879, 891 (Alaska 2013) (citing Holt v. Powell, 420 P.2d 468, 471 (Alaska 1966)). 19 Blaufuss v. Ball, 305 P.3d 281, 285 (Alaska 2013) (quoting Cook v. Cook, 249 P.3d 1070, 1083 (Alaska 2011)). 20 Leisnoi, Inc., 307 P.3d at 891. -9- 6873 hearing would only be a status hearing is dif 2014The Szabos’ belief that the 17 The Szabos do not clearly tie their arguments on appeal to the specific reasons justifying relief under Rule 60(b), but their due process argument most clearly supports a Rule 60(b)(4) argument that the superior court’s order is void. 18 Leisnoi, Inc. v. Merdes & Merdes, P.C., 307 P.3d 879, 891 (Alaska 2013) (citing Holt v. Powell, 420 P.2d 468, 471 (Alaska 1966)). 19 Blaufuss v. Ball, 305 P.3d 281, 285 (Alaska 2013) (quoting Cook v. Cook, 249 P.3d 1070, 1083 (Alaska 2011)). 20 Leisnoi, Inc., 307 P.3d at 891. -9- 6873 hearing would only be a status hearing is dif | 2 | 2 |
Blaufuss v. Ballgreen2 sentences2014The Szabos’ belief that the 17 The Szabos do not clearly tie their arguments on appeal to the specific reasons justifying relief under Rule 60(b), but their due process argument most clearly supports a Rule 60(b)(4) argument that the superior court’s order is void. 18 Leisnoi, Inc. v. Merdes & Merdes, P.C., 307 P.3d 879, 891 (Alaska 2013) (citing Holt v. Powell, 420 P.2d 468, 471 (Alaska 1966)). 19 Blaufuss v. Ball, 305 P.3d 281, 285 (Alaska 2013) (quoting Cook v. Cook, 249 P.3d 1070, 1083 (Alaska 2011)). 20 Leisnoi, Inc., 307 P.3d at 891. -9- 6873 hearing would only be a status hearing is dif 2014The Szabos’ belief that the 17 The Szabos do not clearly tie their arguments on appeal to the specific reasons justifying relief under Rule 60(b), but their due process argument most clearly supports a Rule 60(b)(4) argument that the superior court’s order is void. 18 Leisnoi, Inc. v. Merdes & Merdes, P.C., 307 P.3d 879, 891 (Alaska 2013) (citing Holt v. Powell, 420 P.2d 468, 471 (Alaska 1966)). 19 Blaufuss v. Ball, 305 P.3d 281, 285 (Alaska 2013) (quoting Cook v. Cook, 249 P.3d 1070, 1083 (Alaska 2011)). 20 Leisnoi, Inc., 307 P.3d at 891. -9- 6873 hearing would only be a status hearing is dif | 2 | 2 |
In re Estellegreen1 sentence2020A judge shall dispose of all judicial matters promptly, efficiently, and fairly. 9 In re Estelle, 336 P.3d 692, 693 (Alaska 2014). 10 In re Ivy, 374 P.3d 374, 378 (Alaska 2016). 11 The American Bar Association Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (continued...) -6- ORD 0110 at a status hearing with the parties, and so should have been aware of the deadlines in this case. | 1 | 1 |
In the Disciplinary Matter Involving Dooleygreen1 sentence2020At this hearing Judge White set a 4 Cummings I, 211 P.3d at 1138 . 5 In re Cummings (Cummings II) , 292 P.3d 187, 190 (Alaska 2013) (quoting In re Inquiry Concerning a Judge, 788 P.2d 716, 723 (Alaska 1990)). 6 See Cummings II, 292 P.3d at 190 ; In re Inquiry Concerning a Judge, 788 P.2d at 724 . 7 In re Dooley, 376 P.3d 1249, 1251 (Alaska 2016). -3- ORD 0110 schedule for additional briefing. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Cummingsgreen2 sentences2020At this hearing Judge White set a 4 Cummings I, 211 P.3d at 1138 . 5 In re Cummings (Cummings II) , 292 P.3d 187, 190 (Alaska 2013) (quoting In re Inquiry Concerning a Judge, 788 P.2d 716, 723 (Alaska 1990)). 6 See Cummings II, 292 P.3d at 190 ; In re Inquiry Concerning a Judge, 788 P.2d at 724 . 7 In re Dooley, 376 P.3d 1249, 1251 (Alaska 2016). -3- ORD 0110 schedule for additional briefing. 2020At this hearing Judge White set a 4 Cummings I, 211 P.3d at 1138 . 5 In re Cummings (Cummings II) , 292 P.3d 187, 190 (Alaska 2013) (quoting In re Inquiry Concerning a Judge, 788 P.2d 716, 723 (Alaska 1990)). 6 See Cummings II, 292 P.3d at 190 ; In re Inquiry Concerning a Judge, 788 P.2d at 724 . 7 In re Dooley, 376 P.3d 1249, 1251 (Alaska 2016). -3- ORD 0110 schedule for additional briefing. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Inquiry Concerning a Judgegreen2 sentences2020At this hearing Judge White set a 4 Cummings I, 211 P.3d at 1138 . 5 In re Cummings (Cummings II) , 292 P.3d 187, 190 (Alaska 2013) (quoting In re Inquiry Concerning a Judge, 788 P.2d 716, 723 (Alaska 1990)). 6 See Cummings II, 292 P.3d at 190 ; In re Inquiry Concerning a Judge, 788 P.2d at 724 . 7 In re Dooley, 376 P.3d 1249, 1251 (Alaska 2016). -3- ORD 0110 schedule for additional briefing. 2020At this hearing Judge White set a 4 Cummings I, 211 P.3d at 1138 . 5 In re Cummings (Cummings II) , 292 P.3d 187, 190 (Alaska 2013) (quoting In re Inquiry Concerning a Judge, 788 P.2d 716, 723 (Alaska 1990)). 6 See Cummings II, 292 P.3d at 190 ; In re Inquiry Concerning a Judge, 788 P.2d at 724 . 7 In re Dooley, 376 P.3d 1249, 1251 (Alaska 2016). -3- ORD 0110 schedule for additional briefing. | 1 | 1 |
In the Disciplinary Matter Involving Ivygreen1 sentence2020A judge shall dispose of all judicial matters promptly, efficiently, and fairly. 9 In re Estelle, 336 P.3d 692, 693 (Alaska 2014). 10 In re Ivy, 374 P.3d 374, 378 (Alaska 2016). 11 The American Bar Association Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (continued...) -6- ORD 0110 at a status hearing with the parties, and so should have been aware of the deadlines in this case. | 1 | 1 |
Joe v. Stategreen1 sentence2017See, e.g., Joe v. State, 565 P.2d 508, 510 (Alaska 1977) (calling log notes “skeletal” and implying that “a malfunction in the courtroom electronic recording equipment” was the only reason to consider log notes in that case). -7- 1650 to review the removal either before or after six months had elapsed. | 1 | 1 |
Dewaine Poindexter, Petitioner-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Betty Mitchell, Warden, Respondent-Appellant/cross-Appelleegreen1 sentence2017Rather than supporting her argument with citations from the status hearing transcript, she quotes log notes for the proposition that her trial counsel “opposed six months out for the removal hearing.”12 But this ambiguous quote does not help her argument, as it could mean that her lawyer wanted to hold a hearing 10 “No later than six months after the date on which the petition to terminate parental rights is filed, the court before which the petition is pending shall hold a trial on the petition unless the court finds that good cause is shown for a continuance.” AS 47.10.088(j). 11 See, e.g., | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alaska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Powell v. Maryland Department of Health
green
1 sentence2020Ark. 2002); Powell v. Maryland Dep’t of Health, 168 A.3d 857 (Md. 2017); Lakey v. Taylor, 435 S.W.3d 309 (Tex. App. 2014); State v. Hand, 401 P.3d 367 (Wash. App. 2017). – 10 – 2670 On December 17, the same day that J.K.’s attorney filed his reply to the State’s opposition, the trial court issued an order extending J.K.’s commitment for competency restoration treatment for another 90 days.18 The order also directed that a status hearing be calendared for January 3, 2019. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
In Re Cummings
green
1 sentence2020At this hearing Judge White set a 4 Cummings I, 211 P.3d at 1138 . 5 In re Cummings (Cummings II) , 292 P.3d 187, 190 (Alaska 2013) (quoting In re Inquiry Concerning a Judge, 788 P.2d 716, 723 (Alaska 1990)). 6 See Cummings II, 292 P.3d at 190 ; In re Inquiry Concerning a Judge, 788 P.2d at 724 . 7 In re Dooley, 376 P.3d 1249, 1251 (Alaska 2016). -3- ORD 0110 schedule for additional briefing. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Lakey v. Taylor ex rel. Shearer
green
1 sentence2020Ark. 2002); Powell v. Maryland Dep’t of Health, 168 A.3d 857 (Md. 2017); Lakey v. Taylor, 435 S.W.3d 309 (Tex. App. 2014); State v. Hand, 401 P.3d 367 (Wash. App. 2017). – 10 – 2670 On December 17, the same day that J.K.’s attorney filed his reply to the State’s opposition, the trial court issued an order extending J.K.’s commitment for competency restoration treatment for another 90 days.18 The order also directed that a status hearing be calendared for January 3, 2019. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Philip J. v. State, Department of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services
green
1 sentence2018We have generally allowed trial courts to “rectif[y] . . . initial oversight[s]” by entering subsequent orders that remedy errors or deficiencies in an initial order.36 In Sandy B. v. State, Department 34 See Philip J., 314 P.3d at 526 . 35 The parents’ argument is based in part on the fact that the effective date for the disposition order is February 23, 2017, the date of the disposition hearing, rather than March 15, the date of the status hearing. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Western Pioneer, Inc. v. Harbor Enterprises, Inc.
green
1 sentence1995In Western Pioneer, Inc. v. Harbor Enterprises, Inc., 818 P.2d 654 (Alaska 1991), we reversed a superior court’s application of the parol evidence rule, and in doing so, summarized the current status of the rule in Alaska: The parol evidence rule is implicated when one party seeks to introduce extrinsic evidence which varies or contradicts an integrated contract. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.