6 Alaska opinions name it 1 courts 2001–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Orange County Social Services Agency v. Lorenzo M.green2 sentences2001See In re Riva M., 235 Cal.App.3d 403 , 286 Cal.Rptr. 592, 597-98 (1991) ("there is no hint from the statutory language or cases construing it that the procedural standards [in ICWA] are constitutionally compelled"). 2001See In re Riva M., 235 Cal.App.3d 403 , 286 Cal.Rptr. 592, 597-98 (1991) ("there is no hint from the statutory language or cases construing it that the procedural standards [in ICWA] are constitutionally compelled"). | 2 | 2 |
Brandon v. Corrections Corp. of Americagreen1 sentence2016Corp. of Am., 28 P.3d 269, 280 (Alaska 2001)). | 1 | 1 |
Brynna B. v. State, Department of Health & Social Servicesgreen1 sentence2016Servs., 88 P.3d 527, 529 (Alaska 2004)). -6- 1569 judgment to review questions of law.9 “[W]hether the expert testimony requirement of ICWA is satisfied is a pure question of law to be reviewed de novo.”10 Whether the trial court’s findings satisfy the requirements of the CINA and ICWA statutes is reviewed de novo.11 And “[w]hether a parent’s due process right to receive effective assistance of counsel was violated is a question of law.”12 IV. | 1 | 1 |
In re Candacegreen1 sentence2016STANDARD OF REVIEW “[W]hether the expert testimony requirement of ICWA is satisfied is a pure question of law to be reviewed de novo.”9 “[W]hether ‘returning the child to the parent would place the child at substantial risk of physical or mental injury’ [is a] factual determination[] best made by a trial court after hearing witnesses and reviewing evidence.”10 “We review the content of the superior court’s findings for clear error, but we review de novo whether those findings satisfy the requirements of the CINA rules and ICWA.”11 “Generally, conflicting evidence is insufficient to overturn th | 1 | 1 |
Hymes v. DeRamusgreen1 sentence2016First, they ask us to modify the expert testimony requirement in medical malpractice cases by adopting a “learned treatise exception.” We consider this argument waived because “a party may not raise an issue for the first time on appeal.” Hymes II, 222 P.3d 874, 889 (Alaska 2010) (quoting Brandon v. Corr. | 1 | 1 |
Christina J. v. State, Department of Health & Social Servicesgreen1 sentence2016Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 254 P.3d 1095, 1104 (Alaska 2011)). 10 Barbara P. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. | 1 | 1 |
Marcia v. v. Stategreen1 sentence2016Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 314 P.3d 518, 527 (Alaska 2013)); see also 25 U.S.C. § 1912 (d) (2012); CINA Rule 18(c)(2)(B). 12 25 U.S.C. § 1912 (f). 13 Diana P., 355 P.3d at 546 -47 (quoting Marcia V. v. State, Office of Children’s Servs., 201 P.3d 496, 508 (Alaska 2009)). -10- 1596 “by a preponderance of the evidence that termination of parental rights is in the best interests of the child.”14 We review a trial court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions using our independent judgment;15 we review de novo the trial court’s application of law to factual findings, | 1 | 1 |
Philip J. v. State, Department of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Servicesgreen1 sentence2016Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 314 P.3d 518, 527 (Alaska 2013)); see also 25 U.S.C. § 1912 (d) (2012); CINA Rule 18(c)(2)(B). 12 25 U.S.C. § 1912 (f). 13 Diana P., 355 P.3d at 546 -47 (quoting Marcia V. v. State, Office of Children’s Servs., 201 P.3d 496, 508 (Alaska 2009)). -10- 1596 “by a preponderance of the evidence that termination of parental rights is in the best interests of the child.”14 We review a trial court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions using our independent judgment;15 we review de novo the trial court’s application of law to factual findings, | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alaska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Diana P. v. State, Department of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services
green
1 sentence2016Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 314 P.3d 518, 527 (Alaska 2013)); see also 25 U.S.C. § 1912 (d) (2012); CINA Rule 18(c)(2)(B). 12 25 U.S.C. § 1912 (f). 13 Diana P., 355 P.3d at 546 -47 (quoting Marcia V. v. State, Office of Children’s Servs., 201 P.3d 496, 508 (Alaska 2009)). -10- 1596 “by a preponderance of the evidence that termination of parental rights is in the best interests of the child.”14 We review a trial court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions using our independent judgment;15 we review de novo the trial court’s application of law to factual findings, | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.