Free, and it takes a minute. A syfert.com account skips the bot checks on search and case pages, keeps your details and plan under the account icon, and comes with an MCP token for Claude, ChatGPT or any MCP-capable assistant, emailed to you with a link to the setup page and always available from the account icon.
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 1977–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Christopher D. v. Krislyn D.green1 sentence2024A court can grant an untimely Rule 60(b) motion if it decides that “the demands 5 Fernandez v. Fernandez, 358 P.3d 562, 565 (Alaska 2015) (quoting Morris v. Morris, 908 P.2d 425, 427 (Alaska 1995)). 6 Christopher D. v. Krislyn D., 426 P.3d 1118, 1120-21 (Alaska 2018). 7 del Rosario v. Clare, 378 P.3d 380, 383-84 (Alaska 2016). 8 Moeller-Prokosch v. Prokosch, 99 P.3d 531, 534 (Alaska 2004). 9 Hudson v. Hudson, 532 P.3d 272, 279 (Alaska 2023). -10- 2058 of justice” require relaxation of the deadline.10 But because the court denied Thomas’s motion, and because we can affirm that denial on the gro | 1 | 1 |
Veronica Louise Hudson v. Daniel Lee Hudsongreen1 sentence2024A court can grant an untimely Rule 60(b) motion if it decides that “the demands 5 Fernandez v. Fernandez, 358 P.3d 562, 565 (Alaska 2015) (quoting Morris v. Morris, 908 P.2d 425, 427 (Alaska 1995)). 6 Christopher D. v. Krislyn D., 426 P.3d 1118, 1120-21 (Alaska 2018). 7 del Rosario v. Clare, 378 P.3d 380, 383-84 (Alaska 2016). 8 Moeller-Prokosch v. Prokosch, 99 P.3d 531, 534 (Alaska 2004). 9 Hudson v. Hudson, 532 P.3d 272, 279 (Alaska 2023). -10- 2058 of justice” require relaxation of the deadline.10 But because the court denied Thomas’s motion, and because we can affirm that denial on the gro | 1 | 1 |
Moeller-Prokosch v. Prokoschgreen1 sentence2024A court can grant an untimely Rule 60(b) motion if it decides that “the demands 5 Fernandez v. Fernandez, 358 P.3d 562, 565 (Alaska 2015) (quoting Morris v. Morris, 908 P.2d 425, 427 (Alaska 1995)). 6 Christopher D. v. Krislyn D., 426 P.3d 1118, 1120-21 (Alaska 2018). 7 del Rosario v. Clare, 378 P.3d 380, 383-84 (Alaska 2016). 8 Moeller-Prokosch v. Prokosch, 99 P.3d 531, 534 (Alaska 2004). 9 Hudson v. Hudson, 532 P.3d 272, 279 (Alaska 2023). -10- 2058 of justice” require relaxation of the deadline.10 But because the court denied Thomas’s motion, and because we can affirm that denial on the gro | 1 | 1 |
Morris v. Morrisgreen1 sentence2024A court can grant an untimely Rule 60(b) motion if it decides that “the demands 5 Fernandez v. Fernandez, 358 P.3d 562, 565 (Alaska 2015) (quoting Morris v. Morris, 908 P.2d 425, 427 (Alaska 1995)). 6 Christopher D. v. Krislyn D., 426 P.3d 1118, 1120-21 (Alaska 2018). 7 del Rosario v. Clare, 378 P.3d 380, 383-84 (Alaska 2016). 8 Moeller-Prokosch v. Prokosch, 99 P.3d 531, 534 (Alaska 2004). 9 Hudson v. Hudson, 532 P.3d 272, 279 (Alaska 2023). -10- 2058 of justice” require relaxation of the deadline.10 But because the court denied Thomas’s motion, and because we can affirm that denial on the gro | 1 | 1 |
del Rosario v. Claregreen1 sentence2024A court can grant an untimely Rule 60(b) motion if it decides that “the demands 5 Fernandez v. Fernandez, 358 P.3d 562, 565 (Alaska 2015) (quoting Morris v. Morris, 908 P.2d 425, 427 (Alaska 1995)). 6 Christopher D. v. Krislyn D., 426 P.3d 1118, 1120-21 (Alaska 2018). 7 del Rosario v. Clare, 378 P.3d 380, 383-84 (Alaska 2016). 8 Moeller-Prokosch v. Prokosch, 99 P.3d 531, 534 (Alaska 2004). 9 Hudson v. Hudson, 532 P.3d 272, 279 (Alaska 2023). -10- 2058 of justice” require relaxation of the deadline.10 But because the court denied Thomas’s motion, and because we can affirm that denial on the gro | 1 | 1 |
Fernandez v. Fernandezgreen1 sentence2024A court can grant an untimely Rule 60(b) motion if it decides that “the demands 5 Fernandez v. Fernandez, 358 P.3d 562, 565 (Alaska 2015) (quoting Morris v. Morris, 908 P.2d 425, 427 (Alaska 1995)). 6 Christopher D. v. Krislyn D., 426 P.3d 1118, 1120-21 (Alaska 2018). 7 del Rosario v. Clare, 378 P.3d 380, 383-84 (Alaska 2016). 8 Moeller-Prokosch v. Prokosch, 99 P.3d 531, 534 (Alaska 2004). 9 Hudson v. Hudson, 532 P.3d 272, 279 (Alaska 2023). -10- 2058 of justice” require relaxation of the deadline.10 But because the court denied Thomas’s motion, and because we can affirm that denial on the gro | 1 | 1 |
Bird v. Starkeygreen1 sentence2017We also REMAND for clarification of the basis for the superior court’s findings regarding each party’s respective child support obligation. 9 Bird v. Starkey, 914 P.2d 1246, 1249 (Alaska 1996). -7- 1658 | 1 | 1 |
O'CONNELL v. Christensongreen1 sentence2017Because “any attempt to review the court’s decision . . . would be mere guesswork,” we remand this matter to the 8 O’Connell v. Christenson, 75 P.3d 1037, 1040 (Alaska 2003) (citations omitted). -6 1658 superior court for specific findings related to Thomas’s and Jessica’s respective child support obligations.9 IV. | 1 | 1 |
Hussein-Scott v. Scottgreen1 sentence2017P. 90.3(h)(2)). 7 See AS 25.25.604(a); 28 U.S.C. § 1738B(h)(2); Hussein-Scott v. Scott, 298 P.3d 179, 182 (Alaska 2013) (applying AS 25.25.604 to analyze a Florida marital settlement agreement). -5- 1658 denied Thomas’s motion “for the reasons set forth in [Jessica’s] . . . opposition” without further written findings, we are unable to review any factual findings regarding the sufficiency of Thomas’s proof that he provided the insurance. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Alaska Network on Domestic Violence & Sexual Assaultgreen1 sentence2015We do not reach the question whether AS 44.21.410(a)(4) required the appointment of counsel to Thomas in the domestic violence protective order proceeding, or the question whether the superior court should have consolidated the domestic violence proceeding with the divorce case, because Thomas’s appeal arises solely from the divorce and Thomas may not use this appeal to collaterally attack a separate final judgment.15 We have repeatedly warned that “[t]he remedy for legal error is appeal, not collateral attack.”16 If Thomas believed that the failure to appoint counsel in the 14 See In re Alask | 1 | 1 |
Wall v. Stinsongreen1 sentence2015We do not reach the question whether AS 44.21.410(a)(4) required the appointment of counsel to Thomas in the domestic violence protective order proceeding, or the question whether the superior court should have consolidated the domestic violence proceeding with the divorce case, because Thomas’s appeal arises solely from the divorce and Thomas may not use this appeal to collaterally attack a separate final judgment.15 We have repeatedly warned that “[t]he remedy for legal error is appeal, not collateral attack.”16 If Thomas believed that the failure to appoint counsel in the 14 See In re Alask | 1 | 1 |
Villars v. Villarsgreen1 sentence2015We do not reach the question whether AS 44.21.410(a)(4) required the appointment of counsel to Thomas in the domestic violence protective order proceeding, or the question whether the superior court should have consolidated the domestic violence proceeding with the divorce case, because Thomas’s appeal arises solely from the divorce and Thomas may not use this appeal to collaterally attack a separate final judgment.15 We have repeatedly warned that “[t]he remedy for legal error is appeal, not collateral attack.”16 If Thomas believed that the failure to appoint counsel in the 14 See In re Alask | 1 | 1 |
Balthazor v. Stategreen2 sentences1984See Balthazor v. State, 653 P.2d 662, 663-64 (Alaska App.1982); Loveless v. State, 634 P.2d 941 , 946 n. 11 (Alaska App. 1981). 1984See Balthazor v. State, 653 P.2d 662, 663-64 (Alaska App.1982); Loveless v. State, 634 P.2d 941 , 946 n. 11 (Alaska App. 1981). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alaska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Farmer v. Ara Services
green
2 sentences1987Farmer, 660 F.2d at 1104 . 17 Therefore, we likewise remand Thomas’ claim of intentional discrimination by IBEW with respect to the rehire starting pay level issues for appropriate disposition. 1987Farmer, 660 F.2d at 1104 . [17] Therefore, we likewise remand Thomas' claim of intentional discrimination by IBEW with respect to the rehire starting pay level issues for appropriate disposition. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Loveless v. State
green
2 sentences1984See Balthazor v. State, 653 P.2d 662, 663-64 (Alaska App.1982); Loveless v. State, 634 P.2d 941 , 946 n. 11 (Alaska App. 1981). 1984See Balthazor v. State, 653 P.2d 662, 663-64 (Alaska App.1982); Loveless v. State, 634 P.2d 941 , 946 n. 11 (Alaska App. 1981). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Roberts v. State
green
2 sentences1981Assuming without deciding that the Thomas rule applies in Alaska, cf. Roberts v. State, 458 P.2d 340 (Alaska 1969) (conviction reversed where defendant charged with forgery was required to give handwriting exemplars to police despite his request that his attorney first be contacted), it would only apply to statements elicited by interrogation under the Innis test. 1981Assuming without deciding that the Thomas rule applies in Alaska, cf. Roberts v. State, 458 P.2d 340 (Alaska 1969) (conviction reversed where defendant charged with forgery was required to give handwriting exemplars to police despite his request that his attorney first be contacted), it would only apply to statements elicited by interrogation under the Innis test. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Jones v. State
green
1 sentence1977The state alternatively argues that Thomas’ motion to reduce or modify the sentences in question was untimely under the constraints of Criminal Rule 35(a), and that Criminal Rule 53 is not available to waive or relax the time prerequisite of Criminal Rule 35(a). 30 In Jones v. State, 548 P.2d 958 (Alaska 1976), appellant made a motion in the superior court for an extension of time within which to file a motion for modification or reduction of his sentence. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
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.