adequacy warning (Alaska) · Go Syfert
← Alaska issues

adequacy warning in Alaska

6 Alaska opinions name it 1 courts 1973–2018 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.

Followed or applied (12)

CaseFollowedCited
Carlson v. Doyon Universal-Ogden Servicesgreen
alaska · 2000 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007
1 sentence

2007With regard to the adequacy of the standard articulated by the board, we note that, even in cases involving claims for permanent total disability in which an employer presents evidence suggesting that an injured worker is nof completely incapable of returning to some kind of work, the employer bears the additional burden of further showing that "there is regular and continuously available work in the area suited to the employee's capabilities, i.e., that [the employee} is not an odd lot worker." Leigh v. Seekins Ford, 136 P.3d 214, 216 (Alaska 2006) (citing Carlson v. Doyon Universal-Ogden Ser

11
DeYonge v. Nana/Marriottgreen
alaska · 2000 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007
1 sentence

2007DeYonge v. NANA/Marriott, 1 P.3d 90, 95-96 (Alaska 2000). 26 .

11
Leigh v. Seekins Fordgreen
alaska · 2006 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007
1 sentence

2007With regard to the adequacy of the standard articulated by the board, we note that, even in cases involving claims for permanent total disability in which an employer presents evidence suggesting that an injured worker is nof completely incapable of returning to some kind of work, the employer bears the additional burden of further showing that "there is regular and continuously available work in the area suited to the employee's capabilities, i.e., that [the employee} is not an odd lot worker." Leigh v. Seekins Ford, 136 P.3d 214, 216 (Alaska 2006) (citing Carlson v. Doyon Universal-Ogden Ser

11
Rothie Louise Harris v. Pacific Floor MacHine Manufacturing Company, a Corporationgreen
ca8 · 1988 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995
1 sentence

1995Co., 856 F.2d 64, 67 (8th Cir.1988), the court permitted the expert to explain the criteria he would use to judge the adequacy of a warning, but "ruled that the jury could then apply the criteria to the facts of the case for itself, without the assistance of an expert's opinion.” 28 .

11
United States v. Leslie Fleishman, United States of America v. Peter Combs, United States of America v. Stephen Greengreen
ca9 · 1982 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995
1 sentence

1995In United States v. Fleishman, 684 F.2d 1329, 1337 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1044 , 103 S.Ct. 464 , 74 L.Ed.2d 614 (1982), the court permitted the expert to provide the jury with an extensive review of the principles of handwriting analysis, but left the juty to apply the principles to the facts of the case in order to reach their own conclusion as to the author of a note. 29 .

11
Patricia R. v. Sullivangreen
alaska · 1981 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992
1 sentence

1992See Patricia R., 631 P.2d at 101-102 .

11
Sterling Jackson v. Coast Paint and Lacquer Company, a Corporation, and Reliance Universal Incorporated, a Corporationgreen
ca9 · 1974 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 1981–1981
1 sentence

1981See Jackson v. Coast Paint & Lacquer Co., 499 F.2d 809, 812 (9th Cir. 1974); Cavers v. Cushman Motor Sales, Inc., 95 Cal.App.3d 338 , 157 Cal.Rptr. 142, 149 (1979); Anderson v. Heron Eng'r.

11
Hiigel v. General Motors Corporationgreen
colo · 1976 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 1981–1981
2 sentences

1981For a thorough discussion of the issue of the adequacy of warnings see First National Bank of Albuquerque v. Nor-Am Agricultural Products, Inc., 88 N.M. 34 , 537 P.2d 682, 691-693 (1975); see also Hiigel v. General Motors Corp., 190 Colo. 57 , 544 P.2d 983, 988 (1975) quoting Crane v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 218 Cal.App.2d 855 , 32 Cal.Rptr. 754 (1963). 33 .

1981For a thorough discussion of the issue of the adequacy of warnings see First National Bank of Albuquerque v. Nor-Am Agricultural Products, Inc., 88 N.M. 34 , 537 P.2d 682, 691-693 (1975); see also Hiigel v. General Motors Corp., 190 Colo. 57 , 544 P.2d 983, 988 (1975) quoting Crane v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 218 Cal.App.2d 855 , 32 Cal.Rptr. 754 (1963). 33 .

11
Crane v. Sears Roebuck & Co.green
calctapp · 1963 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 1981–1981
2 sentences

1981For a thorough discussion of the issue of the adequacy of warnings see First National Bank of Albuquerque v. Nor-Am Agricultural Products, Inc., 88 N.M. 34 , 537 P.2d 682, 691-693 (1975); see also Hiigel v. General Motors Corp., 190 Colo. 57 , 544 P.2d 983, 988 (1975) quoting Crane v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 218 Cal.App.2d 855 , 32 Cal.Rptr. 754 (1963). 33 .

1981For a thorough discussion of the issue of the adequacy of warnings see First National Bank of Albuquerque v. Nor-Am Agricultural Products, Inc., 88 N.M. 34 , 537 P.2d 682, 691-693 (1975); see also Hiigel v. General Motors Corp., 190 Colo. 57 , 544 P.2d 983, 988 (1975) quoting Crane v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 218 Cal.App.2d 855 , 32 Cal.Rptr. 754 (1963). 33 .

11
Little v. PPG Industries, Inc.green
wash · 1979 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 1981–1981
2 sentences

1981Little v. PPG Industries, 92 Wash.2d 118 , 594 P.2d 911, 914 (Wash.1979).

1981Little v. PPG Industries, 92 Wash.2d 118 , 594 P.2d 911, 914 (Wash.1979).

11
Cavers v. Cushman Motor Sales, Inc.green
calctapp · 1979 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 1981–1981
2 sentences

1981See Jackson v. Coast Paint & Lacquer Co., 499 F.2d 809, 812 (9th Cir. 1974); Cavers v. Cushman Motor Sales, Inc., 95 Cal.App.3d 338 , 157 Cal.Rptr. 142, 149 (1979); Anderson v. Heron Eng'r.

1981See Jackson v. Coast Paint & Lacquer Co., 499 F.2d 809, 812 (9th Cir. 1974); Cavers v. Cushman Motor Sales, Inc., 95 Cal.App.3d 338 , 157 Cal.Rptr. 142, 149 (1979); Anderson v. Heron Eng'r.

11
First National Bank Ex Rel. Huckleby v. Nor-Am Agricultural Products, Inc.green
nmctapp · 1975 · cited in 1 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 1981–1981
1 sentence

1981For a thorough discussion of the issue of the adequacy of warnings see First National Bank of Albuquerque v. Nor-Am Agricultural Products, Inc., 88 N.M. 34 , 537 P.2d 682, 691-693 (1975); see also Hiigel v. General Motors Corp., 190 Colo. 57 , 544 P.2d 983, 988 (1975) quoting Crane v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 218 Cal.App.2d 855 , 32 Cal.Rptr. 754 (1963). 33 .

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alaska. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
Peterson v. State green
alaska · 2012
1 sentence

2018However, Brandt does not renew this argument on appeal (despite Mat-Su mentioning this argument in its brief); thus we deem it forfeited and do not address it. 17 Peterson v. State , 280 P.3d 559 , 561 (Alaska 2012). 18 See AS 18.23.030. 19 In their Bolinder briefs, Mat-Su and Dr. Zwiacher contend that the scope of the peer review privilege also presents a question of fact: when the medical peer review process begins at Mat-Su.

12018–2018
Fleishman v. United States green
scotus · 1982
2 sentences

1995In United States v. Fleishman, 684 F.2d 1329, 1337 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1044 , 103 S.Ct. 464 , 74 L.Ed.2d 614 (1982), the court permitted the expert to provide the jury with an extensive review of the principles of handwriting analysis, but left the juty to apply the principles to the facts of the case in order to reach their own conclusion as to the author of a note. 29 .

1995In United States v. Fleishman, 684 F.2d 1329, 1337 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1044 , 103 S.Ct. 464 , 74 L.Ed.2d 614 (1982), the court permitted the expert to provide the jury with an extensive review of the principles of handwriting analysis, but left the juty to apply the principles to the facts of the case in order to reach their own conclusion as to the author of a note. 29 .

11995–1995
William Stanley Mayzak v. United States green
ca5 · 1968
2 sentences

1973The adequacy of the warning is not jeopardized by the absence of such embellishments." 402 F.2d at 155 .

1973The adequacy of the warning is not jeopardized by the absence of such embellishments.” 402 F.2d at 155 .

11973–1973

Where else courts name it

TX 172 (1935–2026) NY 130 (1953–2026) CA 78 (1954–2026) IL 58 (1970–2026) WA 51 (1968–2026) PA 46 (1971–2023) IN 43 (1979–2024) FL 42 (1972–2026) NJ 32 (1955–2026) LA 31 (1954–2024) MI 28 (1963–2025) MA 25 (1974–2025) OH 24 (1974–2026) MS 23 (1942–2020) MN 22 (1984–2024) OR 21 (1943–2024) NV 21 (1983–2022) CO 18 (1976–2026) WI 16 (1972–2026) MO 15 (1958–2019) CT 15 (1950–2026) AZ 14 (1947–2024) KS 14 (1984–2026) AL 13 (1983–2013) NM 13 (1975–2015) AR 12 (1992–2022) GA 11 (1982–2026) UT 11 (1989–2024) DC 11 (1968–2025) TN 11 (1985–2022) IA 10 (1986–2014) RI 9 (2000–2026) DE 9 (1985–2024) KY 9 (1968–2024) MD 8 (1968–2012) OK 7 (1975–2010) ID 6 (1979–2013) AK 6 (1973–2018) VA 5 (1985–2026) ND 5 (1909–1997) VT 5 (1990–2026) NC 4 (1975–2012) SC 4 (1973–2008) WY 4 (1992–2019) WV 4 (1979–2018) ME 3 (1981–2013) HI 3 (1999–2007) MT 3 (2000–2010) VI 2 (2002–2005)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check