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.
6 Alaska opinions name it 2 courts 1980–1999 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mogg v. National Bank of Alaskagreen1 sentence1999See Christensen v. NCH Corp., 956 P.2d 468, 473-74 (Alaska 1998) (holding that a trial judge was not obliged to conduct an in camera examination of assertedly privileged documents when the basis of the privilege was obvious from the offer of proof and the opposing party offered no specific basis for challenging the assertion of privilege); Mogg v. National Bank of Alaska, 846 P.2d 806, 814 (Alaska 1993) (a trial judge has discretion whether to grant in camera review of materials relevant to a claim of privilege). 32 .See Alaska Dept. of Revenue v. Oliver, 636 P.2d 1156 , 1164 n. 13 (Alaska 198 | 1 | 1 |
Christensen v. NCH Corp.green1 sentence1999See Christensen v. NCH Corp., 956 P.2d 468, 473-74 (Alaska 1998) (holding that a trial judge was not obliged to conduct an in camera examination of assertedly privileged documents when the basis of the privilege was obvious from the offer of proof and the opposing party offered no specific basis for challenging the assertion of privilege); Mogg v. National Bank of Alaska, 846 P.2d 806, 814 (Alaska 1993) (a trial judge has discretion whether to grant in camera review of materials relevant to a claim of privilege). 32 .See Alaska Dept. of Revenue v. Oliver, 636 P.2d 1156 , 1164 n. 13 (Alaska 198 | 1 | 1 |
Robinson v. Stategreen1 sentence1985It is sufficient to note, however, that nothing stated in the in camera proceedings would support a conclusion that the pendency of the murder investigation did not play a role in Eacker's decision to confess to the Time Saver robbery. [3] The holding of Robinson v. State, 593 P.2d 621, 623-24 (Alaska 1979), is inapposite to the present case. | 1 | 1 |
Padgett v. Stategreen1 sentence1983See Padgett v. State, 590 P.2d 432, 435 (Alaska 1979). | 1 | 1 |
Boyd v. United Statesred2 sentences1981Whether the Department of Revenue's summons violated Pickles's rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. [15] The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and its Alaskan counterpart, *1165 Alaska Const. art. 1, § 14, both protect a person's papers against "unreasonable searches and seizures." The Fourth Amendment's role as an absolute prohibition against seizure of documents considered to be within the sphere of "private" or "personal" papers of an individual, regardless of whether their production is compelled by subpoena or actual seizure, traces back to Boyd v. United St 1981Whether the Department of Revenue's summons violated Pickles's rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. [15] The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and its Alaskan counterpart, *1165 Alaska Const. art. 1, § 14, both protect a person's papers against "unreasonable searches and seizures." The Fourth Amendment's role as an absolute prohibition against seizure of documents considered to be within the sphere of "private" or "personal" papers of an individual, regardless of whether their production is compelled by subpoena or actual seizure, traces back to Boyd v. United St | 1 | 1 |
People v. Aguileragreen2 sentences1980Id. 131 Cal. Rptr. at 606-07 (holding that an in camera hearing was mandatory upon a request by the prosecutor). 1980Id. 131 Cal. Rptr. at 606-07 (holding that an in camera hearing was mandatory upon a request by the prosecutor). | 1 | 1 |
United States of America, Vsv. Walter K. Fischer and Gregory Stuevegreen2 sentences1980United States v. Fischer, 531 F.2d 783, 787-88 (5th Cir. 1976). 1980United States v. Fischer, 531 F.2d 783, 787-88 (5th Cir.1976). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alaska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State, Department of Revenue v. Oliver
green
1 sentence1999See Christensen v. NCH Corp., 956 P.2d 468, 473-74 (Alaska 1998) (holding that a trial judge was not obliged to conduct an in camera examination of assertedly privileged documents when the basis of the privilege was obvious from the offer of proof and the opposing party offered no specific basis for challenging the assertion of privilege); Mogg v. National Bank of Alaska, 846 P.2d 806, 814 (Alaska 1993) (a trial judge has discretion whether to grant in camera review of materials relevant to a claim of privilege). 32 .See Alaska Dept. of Revenue v. Oliver, 636 P.2d 1156 , 1164 n. 13 (Alaska 198 | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Balentine v. State
green
1 sentence1991Balentine, 707 P.2d at 928 . *691 We believe that to the extent the court could delete any information tending to identify the Markair employees from a transcript of the in camera hearing, Peterson was entitled to an edited transcript. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Andresen v. Maryland
green
2 sentences1981Whether the Department of Revenue's summons violated Pickles's rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. [15] The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and its Alaskan counterpart, *1165 Alaska Const. art. 1, § 14, both protect a person's papers against "unreasonable searches and seizures." The Fourth Amendment's role as an absolute prohibition against seizure of documents considered to be within the sphere of "private" or "personal" papers of an individual, regardless of whether their production is compelled by subpoena or actual seizure, traces back to Boyd v. United St 1981Whether the Department of Revenue's summons violated Pickles's rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. [15] The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and its Alaskan counterpart, *1165 Alaska Const. art. 1, § 14, both protect a person's papers against "unreasonable searches and seizures." The Fourth Amendment's role as an absolute prohibition against seizure of documents considered to be within the sphere of "private" or "personal" papers of an individual, regardless of whether their production is compelled by subpoena or actual seizure, traces back to Boyd v. United St | 1 | 1981–1981 |
McCray v. Illinois
green
2 sentences1980While we recognize that the informer's privilege carries the risk that it may be used to shield misrepresentation, Id. at 316 n. 2, 87 S.Ct. at 1065 n. 2, 18 L.Ed.2d at 74 n. 2 (Douglas, J., dissenting), or illegal police activities, [8] we believe the procedure for an in camera hearing set forth in Criminal Rule 37(d) sufficiently protects against this risk. 1980While we recognize that the informer's privilege carries the risk that it may be used to shield misrepresentation, Id. at 316 n. 2, 87 S.Ct. at 1065 n. 2, 18 L.Ed.2d at 74 n. 2 (Douglas, J., dissenting), or illegal police activities, [8] we believe the procedure for an in camera hearing set forth in Criminal Rule 37(d) sufficiently protects against this risk. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.